Обсуждение: Broken link in pgcrypto documentation
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/pgcrypto.html Description: I was going through the links in pgcrypto documentation and I realized that one of the links at Useful Reading section do not work. interhack.net seems to be down for a while whereas interhack.com contains a portion of the contents of the former website in a different hierarchy. I did some digging and I believe we can update that link to the same set of information on the other website. Relevant page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/pgcrypto.html#PGCRYPTO-NOTES-USEFUL-READING Current link that does not work: http://www.interhack.net/people/cmcurtin/snake-oil-faq.html Last capture at Web Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20211114090731/http://www.interhack.net/people/cmcurtin/snake-oil-faq.html My suggestion for updating the link: http://web.interhack.com/publications/snake-oil-faq Thanks, Hanefi
> On 12 Feb 2024, at 13:55, PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org> wrote: > > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/pgcrypto.html > Description: > > I was going through the links in pgcrypto documentation and I realized that > one of the links at Useful Reading section do not work. Thanks for the report! However, I wonder if we aren't better off removing the "Useful Reading" section altogether? The field of crypto is continuously advancing and keeping a stale 10+ year old list of links is unlikely to provide more insights than what more curated sites can do. -- Daniel Gustafsson
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 7:12 PM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote: > > > On 12 Feb 2024, at 13:55, PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org> wrote: > > > > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/pgcrypto.html > > Description: > > > > I was going through the links in pgcrypto documentation and I realized that > > one of the links at Useful Reading section do not work. > > Thanks for the report! > > However, I wonder if we aren't better off removing the "Useful Reading" section > altogether? The field of crypto is continuously advancing and keeping a stale > 10+ year old list of links is unlikely to provide more insights than what more > curated sites can do. +1. I don't think it's the job of a postgres contrib module to maintain that. -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 7:12 PM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote:
>> However, I wonder if we aren't better off removing the "Useful Reading" section
>> altogether? The field of crypto is continuously advancing and keeping a stale
>> 10+ year old list of links is unlikely to provide more insights than what more
>> curated sites can do.
> +1. I don't think it's the job of a postgres contrib module to maintain that.
+1. We haven't maintained that list in the past and it seems unlikely
that we'll get better at it.
I'm a little dubious about the "Technical References" list right below
it, too. The RFC references are probably useful and stable, and maybe
the wikipedia ref is OK, but I have little faith in either the
stability or the long-term relevance of the other two links.
regards, tom lane
> On 13 Feb 2024, at 20:42, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: >> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 7:12 PM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote: >>> However, I wonder if we aren't better off removing the "Useful Reading" section >>> altogether? The field of crypto is continuously advancing and keeping a stale >>> 10+ year old list of links is unlikely to provide more insights than what more >>> curated sites can do. > >> +1. I don't think it's the job of a postgres contrib module to maintain that. > > +1. We haven't maintained that list in the past and it seems unlikely > that we'll get better at it. > > I'm a little dubious about the "Technical References" list right below > it, too. The RFC references are probably useful and stable, and maybe > the wikipedia ref is OK, but I have little faith in either the > stability or the long-term relevance of the other two links. Not even those are all that stable, while the RFCs' in question haven't been replaced they have all been updated with new RFC's which we don't link to. I think we are better off removing them as well and leaving reading up on security/crypto subject an exercise for the reader. Specifically, I propose the attached. -- Daniel Gustafsson
Вложения
Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes:
> On 13 Feb 2024, at 20:42, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I'm a little dubious about the "Technical References" list right below
>> it, too. The RFC references are probably useful and stable, and maybe
>> the wikipedia ref is OK, but I have little faith in either the
>> stability or the long-term relevance of the other two links.
> Not even those are all that stable, while the RFCs' in question haven't been
> replaced they have all been updated with new RFC's which we don't link to. I
> think we are better off removing them as well and leaving reading up on
> security/crypto subject an exercise for the reader.
Good point. Nuking both lists works for me.
regards, tom lane
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 9:08 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes: > > On 13 Feb 2024, at 20:42, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> I'm a little dubious about the "Technical References" list right below > >> it, too. The RFC references are probably useful and stable, and maybe > >> the wikipedia ref is OK, but I have little faith in either the > >> stability or the long-term relevance of the other two links. > > > Not even those are all that stable, while the RFCs' in question haven't been > > replaced they have all been updated with new RFC's which we don't link to. I > > think we are better off removing them as well and leaving reading up on > > security/crypto subject an exercise for the reader. > > Good point. Nuking both lists works for me. +1. -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/
> On 13 Feb 2024, at 21:24, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 9:08 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> >> Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes: >>> On 13 Feb 2024, at 20:42, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>>> I'm a little dubious about the "Technical References" list right below >>>> it, too. The RFC references are probably useful and stable, and maybe >>>> the wikipedia ref is OK, but I have little faith in either the >>>> stability or the long-term relevance of the other two links. >> >>> Not even those are all that stable, while the RFCs' in question haven't been >>> replaced they have all been updated with new RFC's which we don't link to. I >>> think we are better off removing them as well and leaving reading up on >>> security/crypto subject an exercise for the reader. >> >> Good point. Nuking both lists works for me. > > +1. Alright, sounds good. I'll go ahead with that in the morning then, backpatched all the way down since the links are equally outdated everywhere. -- Daniel Gustafsson