> "Provided chain ends with unknown self-signed certificate".
I like this.
IMHO "unrecognized" would be more confusing.
I hope the team makes up their mind quickly.
On 12/4/18, 6:17 PM, "openssl-users on behalf of Michael Wojcik" <openssl-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Michael.Wojcik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: openssl-users [mailto:openssl-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Jakob Bohm via openssl-users
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2018 08:15
> > Care to create a PR against the "master" branch? Something
> > along the lines of:
> >
> > "Provided chain ends with untrusted self-signed certificate"
> >
> > or better. Here "untrusted" might mean not trusted for the requested
> > purpose, but more precise is not always more clear.
> >
> Perhaps s/untrusted/unknown/ as in
>
> "Provided chain ends with unknown self-signed certificate".
Yes, that might be better. Or maybe "unrecognized". Of course there's scope for someone to misinterpret regardless of which term is used. I can suggest various alternatives in the PR and let the team decide.
> Or even better, two different error codes:
>
> - "Only self-signed end certificate provided"
>
> - "Provided chain ends with unknown root certificate"
>
> (Deciding which one keeps the old error code is left as
> an exercise).
I can raise that as a possibility too, in the PR. Obviously it's a bit more work than simply changing the existing text.
--
Michael Wojcik
Distinguished Engineer, Micro Focus
--
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-- openssl-users mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
