On 13 July 2016 at 12:02, D. Hugh Redelmeier <[email protected]> wrote: > | From: Andrew Cagney <[email protected]> > | To: [email protected] > > | New commits: > | commit 16deb8e1ff668d5d5fb68fa37adfd23a06bfa1d4 > | Author: Andrew Cagney <[email protected]> > | Date: Tue Jul 12 16:13:27 2016 -0400 > | > | pluto: logging tweaks, try to more clearly spell out initiator and > responder > > I think that messages would be clearer if we capitalized Initiator and > Responder when referring to the formal roles.
True, otoh at least it is trying to use IKEv2 RFC terminology such as initiator, responder, accepted, local, remote, ... both internally and externally :-) I think this goes hand in hand with some other style issues - both in the code and the log messages. For instance: - this one - Initiator vs Responder vs Initial Initiator vs Initial Responder vs ... - us / them, our / their, *his* (now that dates the code), ... vs local / remote (which the RFC seems to use) - [IR][12] vs INIT/AUTH Is there a cheat sheet somewhere to remind us of nits like this when trying to follow IKEv2 RFC terminology style (like we adopted "Linux Coding Style"). That way, as we touch code, we can at least get the messages right? > _______________________________________________ > Swan-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan-dev _______________________________________________ Swan-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan-dev
