Timothy Brownawell: > Before that, there's moving to SSL. This is case (2), so we could try to > add negotiation now to support it. Or we could make it possible for one > server to serve both SSL and non-SSL at the same time on different > ports, and not risk mucking up the nice encryption properties.
Would it be possible to serve both variations on the same network port? I don't know netsync and how it does handshaking (if at all). But as I learned not long ago, for example SMTP uses plain and also SSL encrypted connections over the same port. Both end points negotiate about their capabilities and at some point one of them says "starttls" and the encryption handshake begins. Could be that most of the connection handling code would have to be rewritten to offer this feature. But everytime I read "let's use another port" the word "firewall" comes to my mind. Just my little thoughts... Greetings, Philipp
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
