Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0

[Philipp Gröschler]

Timothy Brownawell:
> Before that, there's moving to SSL. This is case (2), so we could try to
> add negotiation now to support it. Or we could make it possible for one
> server to serve both SSL and non-SSL at the same time on different
> ports, and not risk mucking up the nice encryption properties.

Would it be possible to serve both variations on the same network port?
I don't know netsync and how it does handshaking (if at all). But as I
learned not long ago, for example SMTP uses plain and also SSL encrypted
connections over the same port. Both end points negotiate about their
capabilities and at some point one of them says "starttls" and the
encryption handshake begins.

Could be that most of the connection handling code would have to be
rewritten to offer this feature. But everytime I read "let's use another
port" the word "firewall" comes to my mind.

Just my little thoughts...

Greetings,
Philipp

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature