Re: SSL/TLS instead of SSL in docs

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
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: 2021-06-18 05:37:32
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 03:59:18PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> While in there I added IMO missing items to the glossary and acronyms sections
> as well as fixed up markup around OpenSSL.
> This only deals with docs, but if this is deemed interesting then userfacing
> messages in the code should use SSL/TLS as well of course.

+ <term><acronym>SNI</acronym></term>
+ <listitem>
+ <para>
+ <link linkend="libpq-connect-sslsni">Server Name Indication</link>
+ </para>
+ </listitem>
It looks inconsistent to me to point to the libpq documentation to get
the details about SNI. Wouldn't is be better to have an item in the
glossary that refers to the bits of RFC 6066, and remove the reference
of the RPC from the libpq page?

- to present a valid (trusted) SSL certificate, while
+ to present a valid (trusted) <acronym>SSL</acronym>/<acronym>TLS</acronym> certificate, while
This style with two acronyms for what we want to be one thing is
heavy. Could it be better to just have one single acronym called
SSL/TLS that references both parts?

Patch 0003, for the <productname> markups with OpenSSL, included one
SSL/TLS entry.

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2021-06-18 05:52:23 Re: Unresolved repliaction hang and stop problem.
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2021-06-18 05:37:11 Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions