[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       libreswan-dev
Subject:    Re: [Swan-dev] try to more clearly spell out initiator and responder
From:       Andrew Cagney <andrew.cagney () gmail ! com>
Date:       2016-07-14 14:16:43
Message-ID: CAJeAr6vdx4T_LS4JWYCT-h18i63W7zign_RWoFivC=3_FW=bFw () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 13 July 2016 at 12:02, D. Hugh Redelmeier <hugh@mimosa.com> wrote:
> | From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@vault.libreswan.fi>
> | To: swan-commit@lists.libreswan.org
>
> | New commits:
> | commit 16deb8e1ff668d5d5fb68fa37adfd23a06bfa1d4
> | Author: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> | 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
> Swan-dev@lists.libreswan.org
> https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan-dev
_______________________________________________
Swan-dev mailing list
Swan-dev@lists.libreswan.org
https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan-dev
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]