From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 615F71FF16B for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2025 10:20:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id EB572A56E; Tue, 29 Jul 2025 10:21:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2025 10:21:01 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta To: Stefan Hanreich , Proxmox VE development discussion , Gabriel Goller References: <20250724141730.468243-1-g.goller@proxmox.com> <20250724141730.468243-2-g.goller@proxmox.com> <067c88b2-330a-49a2-96d9-064ed550d0ff@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <067c88b2-330a-49a2-96d9-064ed550d0ff@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1753777252945 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.031 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH network v2 1/5] sdn: add global lock for configuration X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" Am 29.07.25 um 09:59 schrieb Stefan Hanreich: > On 7/29/25 9:28 AM, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >> nit: might be better to avoid the "secret" terminology here? As this is not really >> a secret but rather something like a token, handle or maybe even cookie. ... >> Could be fixed up though, if you agree with changing this and have an opinion >> on what variant (handle, token, cookie, ...?) would be best. > > Makes sense, I'm gravitating towards token then - although handle would > be fine by me as well. Cookie has the same issues with pre-existing > sentiment / connotations imo? While lock handle is common term, those handles more often refer to file handles, so token might be indeed the least problematic / overloaded term here. > Gabriel mentioned something similar about the used characters, because > the current character set is also inconvenient for running CLI commands. > UUIDv7 sounds sensible for this use-case and since we already use the > UUID module in our stack we could just opt for that? ack. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel