Henry B. Hotz wrote:
>>>>> I would call them "gss" and "gss-sec". Or possibly "gss-enc". I think
>>>>> that's a lot more clear than "gss-np" (something ending with -sec is a
>>>>> giveaway)
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>
>>> If we settle on gss-np and gss-sec is that a good compromise?
>>
>> I still think the "-np" part is unclear - it's not "easily guessable
>> without reading the documentation", unless you're already familiar
>> with it.
>>
>> //Magnus
>
> gss-noprot and gss-prot
>
> gss-noenc and gss-enc
Those I like better. I still think it's unnecessary, but I won't object
to those :-)
//Magnus