Code Review Request: TLS 1.3 Implementation

[Weijun Wang]

I was also thinking about the name. Why don't we always make the enum field identical to the name (including the unsupported ones)? Then we don't need a name property and valueOf() automagically works.

--Max

> On Jun 12, 2018, at 9:36 AM, Xuelei Fan <xuelei.fan at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/11/2018 5:56 PM, Bradford Wetmore wrote:
> <...skipped...>
>>>>> 262:  What is the point of the aliases argument in the constructor? Was the idea to provide a mapping between suites we originally created with the SSL_ prefix vs the more current TLS_ prefix we used in the later TLS protocols?  There is only an empty string in every constructor, so this code doesn't do anything.
>>>>> 
>>> Added the aliases.
>> Great, thanks.  Once minor formatting comment which would help comparability/readability.  Take or leave it.
>>     SSL_DHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA(
>>             0x0016, true, "SSL_DHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA",
>>             "TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA",
>>             ProtocolVersion.PROTOCOLS_TO_12,
>>             K_DHE_RSA, B_3DES, M_SHA, H_SHA256),
>> ->
>>     SSL_DHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA(
>>             0x0016, true, "SSL_DHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA",
>>                           "TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA",
>>             ProtocolVersion.PROTOCOLS_TO_12,
>>             K_DHE_RSA, B_3DES, M_SHA, H_SHA256),
> It looks really nice, and I will take it.  Updated in my local workspace, will push later in my next changeset.