yes, I agree. It makes sense to keep the RFC terminology in the implementation but to use the "common language" in the configuration grammar. developers need to understand the code related to the RFCs, users shouldn't have to learn new terminology for crypto thats is configured in n other places in OpenBSD.
@mikeb isn't it the same in iked? all the fancy IKEv2-RFC terminology in the code and a configuration that sounds more natural to OpenBSD, eg. "TS/Traffic Selectors" vs. "from ... to" flows? On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Gerhard Roth <gerhard_r...@genua.de> wrote: > I agree with Reyk that the configuration of snmpd should be possible > to anyone who has not read all the SNMPv3 RFCs. > > OTOH, shouldn't the code somehow reflect which part of the RFCs > it implements? Otherwise its hard to understand whats happening. > And unfortunately the RFCs use the word "priv" or "privacy" consistenly > instead of "encryption". > > Gerhard
