cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/security chapter.sgml

[Giorgos Keramidas]

On 2006-11-12 22:12, Niclas Zeising <niclas.zeising at gmail.com> wrote:
>Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>>On 2006-11-13 05:27, Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy at optushome.com.au> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 2006-Nov-12 12:14:31 +0100, Marc Fonvieille wrote:
>>>> SSH is the protocol, and ssh is the application/program (so
>>>> <application></application> or <command></command> according to the
>>>> situation).
>>>
>>> To be pedantic, the application is OpenSSH.
>>
>> Well, right now, yes.  But it is "a member of the family of applications
>> which implement the `SSH' protocol".  I am not saying that this can
>> actually happen real soon now, but if OpenSSH doesn't work the way we
>> want it to work, it is possible that our <application>SSH</application>
>> in a few years will be <application>FooSSH</application>.
>>
>> When the 'Open' part of 'OpenSSH' is important, it is obligatory that
>> we mention and make it stand out (if not for any other reason, as a form
>> of our appreciation for the work of the OpenSSH folks).  But when we
>> talk about the 'SSH' protocol in general, do we really have to do so?
>
> This chapter, as far as I can tell, talks about SSH in general, as
> Giorgos stated. There is another chapter talking about OpenSSH in
> particular, and in that chapter OpenSSH is used when talking about the
> application.

Excellent!  I'm glad we got that straight :)

So, Niclas, just to get this thread directed towards a more productive
closure, in a previous post of yours you wrote:

% Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 12:22:53 +0100
% From: Niclas Zeising <lothrandil at n00b.apagnu.se>
% Subject: Re: cvs commit:
%   doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/security chapter.sgml
% To: Marc Fonvieille <blackend at freebsd.org>
% CC: Johann Kois <jkois at freebsd.org>, doc-committers at freebsd.org,
%     Giorgos Keramidas <keramida at freebsd.org>, cvs-all at freebsd.org,
%     cvs-doc at freebsd.org
%  
% Okay. I'll do an overhaul of the security chapter and see if I can make
% some sort of progress regarding consistency between, SSH, ssh and so on,
% using SSH for the protocol, and <application>ssh</application> or
% <command>ssh</command> depending on the situation.

Should we expect a patch for the <application>SSH</application> stuff?

If you are going to work on this, it would be nice to know, so we avoid
duplication of work by 2 or more prople for the same relatively trivial
change.

- Giorgos