Print

Print

@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, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: <xrootd/xrootd/pull/2031/review/1473331346@github.com>

[ { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "EmailMessage", "potentialAction": { "@type": "ViewAction", "target": "https://github.com/xrootd/xrootd/pull/2031#pullrequestreview-1473331346", "url": "https://github.com/xrootd/xrootd/pull/2031#pullrequestreview-1473331346", "name": "View Pull Request" }, "description": "View this Pull Request on GitHub", "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "GitHub", "url": "https://github.com" } } ]

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