Timothy Brownawell <tbrow...@prjek.net> writes:
> On Sat, 2009-08-22 at 14:01 -0400, Stephen Leake wrote:
>> Timothy Brownawell <tbrow...@prjek.net> writes:
>>
>> On the other hand, ssl already has its own access control. Do we
>> really need another layer?
>
> I didn't think ssl had login names, just certificates (keys). Are you
> thinking ssh here, or are there more features available than I thought?
You are right, I'm thinking ssh. I have not used ssl directly.
>> I guess we do; if there are several monotone databases on a machine,
>> they might want different permissions, while ssl just grants access to
>> the machine.
>
> We do need something more detailed than "connected" vs "not connected",
> for example like what get_{read,write}_permitted() currently allow.
>
>> Where do we write down these design decisions?
>
> I guess it would need a wiki (but how can it be a wiki without an edit
> button?) page. I don't see anything there now, besides a brief mention
> on the FutureCryptography page.
There's http://www.monotone.ca/wiki/NetsyncTodo/ . We could just add
stuff at the beginning of that.
Or create a new wiki/Netsync2.0 (or 3.0? what version is the current netsync?)
--
-- Stephe
_______________________________________________
Monotone-devel mailing list
Monotone-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
