On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 17:19:52 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan <xue...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Hai-May Chao has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a 
>> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes 
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains six additional 
>> commits since the last revision:
>> 
>>  - Merge
>>  - Override the client/server defaults
>>  - Change made to configure max allowed cert chain lengths based on updated 
>> CSR
>>  - Merge
>>  - Set to default if a negative value is set
>>  - 8311596: Add separate system properties for TLS server and client for 
>> maximum chain length
>
> I was wondering, if it is easier to learn and remember/search by following 
> the naming style "jdk.tls.client.XXX" or "jdk.tls.server.XXX" in SunJSSE 
> provider?

> @XueleiFan The current properties named` jdk.tls.client.*` and 
> `jdk.tls.server.*` apply to settings either on the client or the server, so 
> we'd have to rename the properties here. My suggestion is to:
> 
> * Change `jdk.tls.maxServerCertificateChainLength` to 
> `jdk.tls.client.maxAcceptedCertificateChainLength`
> * Change `jdk.tls.maxClientCertificateChainLength` to 
> `jdk.tls.server.maxAcceptedCertificateChainLength`
> 
> Thanks!

For the name "jdk.tls.maxServerCertificateChainLength", it is not clear to me 
which side, client or server, the property should be applied to.   It could 
also mean that server can only send out certification with this limitation.

For the name `jdk.tls.client.maxAcceptedCertificateChainLength`, it could be 
confused to parse the word "accepted".  It could mean that the accepted 
cert-chain length for sending out certificates.

Maybe, you can have a try with 
"jdk.tls.client.maxServerCertificateChainLength", which means for client side, 
the server certificate chain length (inbound) is limited.  Or if you want to 
simplify the property name, you can have a try for 
""jdk.tls.client.maxInboundCertificateChainLength"".

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15163#issuecomment-1779753163

Reply via email to