> On 13 Feb 2024, at 21:24, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 9:08 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> >> Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> writes: >>> On 13 Feb 2024, at 20:42, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>>> I'm a little dubious about the "Technical References" list right below >>>> it, too. The RFC references are probably useful and stable, and maybe >>>> the wikipedia ref is OK, but I have little faith in either the >>>> stability or the long-term relevance of the other two links. >> >>> Not even those are all that stable, while the RFCs' in question haven't been >>> replaced they have all been updated with new RFC's which we don't link to. >>> I >>> think we are better off removing them as well and leaving reading up on >>> security/crypto subject an exercise for the reader. >> >> Good point. Nuking both lists works for me. > > +1.
Alright, sounds good. I'll go ahead with that in the morning then, backpatched all the way down since the links are equally outdated everywhere. -- Daniel Gustafsson
