 |
 |
@abh3 commented on this pull request. I don't see anything wrong here but I was somewhat confused of why --notls was introduced when --notlsok seems to pretty much do the same thing (OK, --notlsok is server oriented and --notls is client oriented). Can't we just expand --notlsok to include server non-support as well as client non-support? This does away with a somewhat confusing option. Additionally, why do we need a new option at all to solve this problem. If the client can't do TLS for any reason then it is deemed not TLS capable just like older clients. So, I am still puzzled at the introduction of the new option. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/xrootd/xrootd/pull/2031#pullrequestreview-1473331346 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <[log in to unmask]> ######################################################################## Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list To unsubscribe from the XROOTD-DEV list, click the following link: https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=XROOTD-DEV&A=1