| From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SSL/TLS instead of SSL in docs |
| Date: | 2021-06-30 20:46:37 |
| Message-ID: | AC869D2D-4D85-479B-8007-D0ADC667D56A@yesql.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 30 Jun 2021, at 20:20, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> I am not in favor of this direction. I think it just adds tediousness and doesn't really help anyone. If we are worried about correct terminology, then we should just change everything to TLS.
I actually think SSL/TLS has won the debate of "correct terminology" for
describing a secure connection encrypted by a TLS protocol.
> If we are not, then saying SSL is enough.
I think consistency is the interesting aspect here. We already have a mix of
SSL, TLS and SSL/TLS (although heavily skewed towards SSL) so we should settle
on one and stick to it. The arguments in the NSS thread which led to this
pointed to SSL/TLS. If we feel that the churn isn't worth it, then we should
change all to SSL and perhaps instead just add TLS as indexterms to those
sections.
--
Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2021-06-30 21:14:56 | Re: Multiple pg_waldump --rmgr options |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-06-30 20:43:58 | New committers: Daniel Gustafsson and John Naylor |