Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 13:00:33 +0200 (CEST) From: Ronald Klop <ronald-lists@klop.ws> To: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> Cc: "freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org" <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: should rpctlssd be called rpc.tlssd? Message-ID: <717673374.24.1598958033729@localhost> In-Reply-To: <YTBPR01MB3966BA01CAB2EC0304BA66ADDD2E0@YTBPR01MB3966.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> References: <YTBPR01MB3966BA01CAB2EC0304BA66ADDD2E0@YTBPR01MB3966.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Van: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> Datum: dinsdag, 1 september 2020 04:37 Aan: "freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org" <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org> Onderwerp: should rpctlssd be called rpc.tlssd? > > This sounds trivial, but I thought I'd ask, in case anyone > has a preference? > > The NFS over TLS code includes two daemons, one for > the client and one for the server. > I have called them rpctlscd and rpctlssd. > > There was/is a tradition in Sun RPC of putting a "." in > the names. > So, should I be calling these daemons: > rpc.tlscd and rpc.tlssd? I don't have an opinion about the rpc* vs rpc.* tradition. But what I do not understand is why the difference between 2 daemons is only reflected in 1 character of their names. The rest of the name is actually not really significant in keeping them apart. Regards and happy hacking, Ronald. > > Thanks, rick > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Tue Sep 1 11:53:54 2020 Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CD473C3FBE for <freebsd-current@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 11:53:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gljennjohn@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wm1-x32a.google.com (mail-wm1-x32a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32a]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BglpT3P59z4PHY for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 11:53:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gljennjohn@gmail.com) Received: by mail-wm1-x32a.google.com with SMTP id s13so846625wmh.4 for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Tue, 01 Sep 2020 04:53:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0hZE8Jetv1j+rt2JZFEhwDS9osozuncOQn/wNqjWFJo=; b=ufq8PyjKL2UMJnmP10kBpsEItn6c/9jnZm6yXxNTLz2MOovEvz/8SvMc243iWDSW0A tI9resiIs92cjqLXjTQ7zBZHJfjXGEXNSBiZj3xILUBo4FeOwzqwg2KN5beTb5Hojrai xiBCi1JV5jtThI9jvVgCyoEonUygKzBaosqco0Rofb6IkbTaPcotKjkTk43mFIU8HqnO pIKNry3+V/dwtZsD3C+9h1UoZpif9d+1a1GVSruTZ000S8R8c98g5HZ66isdhJIu60Rj gVyv4jaRhIElINzTj7NgugmeMiHY6uuWMlsRfmbcKr87ytHmf0gJ82DnQ5vu0DUJfdho ENxQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531kHc6EghlgOMhS99cJ9MeaqUUzccZe2jIHb7mWWP5Ytw6Mcutb ZI3qSPd0pt+1i7IM0+H/nQc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwX8BxBj3YkUxWxmgBek4n6026CSo+S+9XOlxRFVav5YPXWExE55XpuoMAGAGEYCb9v3AAmEA== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:28c1:: with SMTP id o184mr1473616wmo.91.1598961231857; Tue, 01 Sep 2020 04:53:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ernst.home (pd9e23482.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [217.226.52.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o124sm1512761wmb.2.2020.09.01.04.53.50 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 01 Sep 2020 04:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 13:53:49 +0200 From: Gary Jennejohn <gljennjohn@gmail.com> To: Ronald Klop <ronald-lists@klop.ws> Cc: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>, "freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org" <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: should rpctlssd be called rpc.tlssd? Message-ID: <20200901135349.2f3ca006@ernst.home> In-Reply-To: <717673374.24.1598958033729@localhost> References: <YTBPR01MB3966BA01CAB2EC0304BA66ADDD2E0@YTBPR01MB3966.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <717673374.24.1598958033729@localhost> Reply-To: gljennjohn@gmail.com X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.5 (GTK+ 2.24.32; amd64-portbld-freebsd13.0) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4BglpT3P59z4PHY X-Spamd-Bar: - X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.34 / 15.00]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.00)[gljennjohn@gmail.com]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip6:2a00:1450:4000::/36:c]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; REPLYTO_ADDR_EQ_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[gmail.com:+]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[gmail.com,none]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:2a00:1450::/32, country:US]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; DWL_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[gmail.com:dkim]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.02)[-1.025]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[gmail.com:s=20161025]; RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_PBL(0.00)[217.226.52.130:received]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.73)[0.727]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.04)[-1.040]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; FREEMAIL_REPLYTO(0.00)[gmail.com]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-current@freebsd.org]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[2a00:1450:4864:20::32a:from]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; MAILMAN_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-current] X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current <freebsd-current.freebsd.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-current>, <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/>; List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org> List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2020 11:53:54 -0000 On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 13:00:33 +0200 (CEST) Ronald Klop <ronald-lists@klop.ws> wrote: > Van: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> > Datum: dinsdag, 1 september 2020 04:37 > Aan: "freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org" <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org> > Onderwerp: should rpctlssd be called rpc.tlssd? > > > > This sounds trivial, but I thought I'd ask, in case anyone > > has a preference? > > > > The NFS over TLS code includes two daemons, one for > > the client and one for the server. > > I have called them rpctlscd and rpctlssd. > > > > There was/is a tradition in Sun RPC of putting a "." in > > the names. > > So, should I be calling these daemons: > > rpc.tlscd and rpc.tlssd? > > I don't have an opinion about the rpc* vs rpc.* tradition. > But what I do not understand is why the difference between 2 daemons > is only reflected in 1 character of their names. The rest of the > name is actually not really significant in keeping them apart. > I had the same reaction. Maybe something like rpc.tlsclntd and rpc.tlsservd? -- Gary Jennejohn
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?717673374.24.1598958033729>