From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: dpx.infinity@gmail.com Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id af1dbd9f for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 16:48:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lf0-f50.google.com (mail-lf0-f50.google.com [209.85.215.50]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 090434d2 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 16:48:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-f50.google.com with SMTP id z15so9526403lfd.1 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 09:51:43 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Message-ID: <1489596675.18476.2.camel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Rust implementation status From: Vladimir Matveev To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 20:51:15 +0400 In-Reply-To: References: <80387df1-3237-43a0-adaa-09ffeebbef01@me.com> <1489486302.24652.2.camel@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: WireGuard mailing list List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , В Ср, 15/03/2017 в 08:59 -0700, Jason A. Donenfeld пишет: > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 3:11 AM, Vladimir Matveev > wrote: > > I see. I think that joining efforts would be nice, but, if I > > understand > > it correctly, that project is intended to provide a different > > interface, using WG as an underlying protocol. I personally think > > that > > it would be better to separate these layers, providing the > > connectivity > > daemon and higher-level features separately. I may be wrong though, > > it > > is quite possible that the combined approach will be more useful. > > The objective of all wireguard implementations is to provide a simple > and uniform interface. Unity is very important. I have no interest > debating that point further. It is a stated project goal and a core > design consideration that drives discussion on this list forward. Sorry, I don't understand what exactly wrong with my statement here; if anything, I do agree with the goal of making Wireguard implementations as slim as possible (i.e. following the guideline on https://www.wiregu ard.io/xplatform/). My thoughts in this paragraph were about the implementation here: https://github.com/sopium/titun, which, on the first glance (and I may be wrong here, too) appeared to provide a much more complex interface than the one declared in https://www.wireguard.i o/xplatform/. And my point was that it is probably better to have something simpler, on top of which a more complex interface could be built by someone else. This was not even related to the way the *official* Wireguard implementation should be done. > > > This is understandable, I think. But still, maybe doing development > > on > > Github and publishing the contents of the repository there to the > > main > > repository is possible? I believe that taking advantage of the > > issue > > tracker and the pull requests system there would be very useful and > > convenient. > > The main repository is on git.zx2c4.com, but if people want to use > PRs > and issues, and Sascha wants to review those, then that's of course > fine. Use whatever tools necessary. The important aspect is that the > canonical location for all WireGuard projects remains the same. Yes, I do agree with this, and I saw your answer on Github already and I'm really glad that you are not against this approach. > > > I'm pretty sure that when WG get popuar, differences in behavior > > will > > be unavoidable. > > You are so very wrong. If you start with this stupidity, sure, you'll > get brokenness. But if you actually attempt to carry out something > worthwhile, then each and every such difference will be squashed and > unified. I certainly intend to toil away to achieve this goal. If you mean official implementations, sure, I totally agree, and I agree that it is right. I was talking about unofficial implementations - I don't believe it is possible to force someone not to create a Wireguard implementation with a different interface, if they do decide to do so. > > By the way, are you actually intending to contribute anything here, > or > are you just on this list to bikeshed about procedural issues? I'm very sorry if I said something which made you think so. I totally do not intend to discuss any procedural issues, I do not have a right to do so and I don't think I'm really competent. If I recall correctly, the only thing I said about procedures is that doing development on Github (in the sense of accepting PRs and tracking issues there) would be benefitting for the Rust implementation of Wireguard. I really like Wireguard, and I also like Rust, so I do want to participate in the development of the Rust implementation of it to the best of my ability to do so. Again, I'm sorry if I made a wrong impression here.