Greg Hudson wrote:
>On Sun, 2004-07-11 at 08:04, Mukund wrote:
>
>
>> Yes this is a good idea. We could have a special suffix to the
>>scheme as an alias to having it in the config file. Do you think keeping
>>it the same as other protocols, i.e., the "s" part is a good idea?
>>
>>
>
>Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what people read out of that final "s".
>At a certain level of understanding, people will read in the expectation
>that "svns:" indicates a secure connection, which is good, because
>that's what we'd be ensuring. At a higher level of understanding,
>people might read in a connection on a separate port with an immediate
>TLS negotiation, and become confused because we don't do that ("what
>port do I have to open for svns connections?").
>
>Whatever we do to mark up the URL for this purpose (or, if we don't mark
>up the URL, to mark up the command), I think it needs to be short. So
>the 's' suffix is appealing on those grounds.
>
>
How about calling it "svn+tls"? Although this isn't strictly a tunneling
scheme, it is consistent with the way tunneling schemes are defined. It
would also be consistent with the svn tunnel client-side config file if
we decide that we need it.
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Jul 12 13:31:07 2004