public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Jacob Champion <[email protected]>
To: Dmitry Dolgov <[email protected]>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Add ssl_(supported|shared)_groups to sslinfo
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2026 16:51:40 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOYmi+=r50Kk1c7A7O8yXwJzALyyqDmQE7FiCZvZmt_3WRBGwQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <qyw7l5ztbqouluctxgbxc2aty43suulka2q4ybpaew4tey7rlw@l66rjb7vxxhk>
References: <d57duqvzkxe43oons3jkdq7pj2wacidg7qorxommri74evu3l2@4x53she7mf77>
<[email protected]>
<CAOYmi+nkT7rkbNd6que0wtz=epOikgBKSDR88DQ=cyNJwiUw8Q@mail.gmail.com>
<srua2tidoiztaytmxlwjfpjhntxelmxpfta4lhulvlker444yg@sf232zqm3qvs>
<CAOYmi+k7v6hP5nM7BQdKu37TJFi-X=d7_SDswZBV5q0awxPVYg@mail.gmail.com>
<qyw7l5ztbqouluctxgbxc2aty43suulka2q4ybpaew4tey7rlw@l66rjb7vxxhk>
On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 10:57 AM Dmitry Dolgov <[email protected]> wrote:
> I take it as an argument that
> expanding sslinfo goal and focus is not a problem, as long as it's
> clearly communicated and documented. What do you think?
Yeah -- as long as the API stays coherent, I have no issue with
expanding sslinfo's capabilities.
> select * from ssl_group_info();
> type | name
> ------------+--------------------
> negotiated | X25519MLKEM768
> shared | X25519MLKEM768
> shared | x25519
> supported | X25519MLKEM768
> supported | x25519
Hmm, I'm developing strong opinions over something I said I didn't
feel strongly about. Sorry...
The type names "negotiated", "shared" and "supported" don't really
tell me much as an end user. I know, as a dev, that "negotiated" is
the one that was chosen, "supported" is what the client provided, and
"shared" is the intersection of the client and server sets. But I
think it'd be good to choose names that are either based on the
official TLS specification, or immediately clear to someone who is not
well-versed in TLS to begin with, as opposed to using OpenSSL's
internal API names.
Also, I feel like this is still missing the server side of the Venn diagram.
Also also: if we later expose a version of this table for the
ciphersuites or other negotiated parameters, is this how we'd want the
table to look? What did you care most about when you were debugging?
--Jacob
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Add ssl_(supported|shared)_groups to sslinfo
In-Reply-To: <CAOYmi+=r50Kk1c7A7O8yXwJzALyyqDmQE7FiCZvZmt_3WRBGwQ@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox