Code Review Request: TLS 1.3 Implementation

[Xuelei Fan]

On 6/11/2018 6:43 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:
> 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.
> 
Hm, looks like we can do this way as the names are always caps.  I will 
think about it more later.

Thanks,
Xuelei

> --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.
>