Skip to content

Conversation

@kaitlynmichael
Copy link
Contributor

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Nov 20, 2025

DOC-5988

Copy link
Collaborator

@dwdougherty dwdougherty left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Language LGTM.

Copy link

@ronnybaturov-redis ronnybaturov-redis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good, left minor comments

</td>
<td>false</td>
</tr><tr>
<td>cpInterNodeEncryptionCertificateSecretName</td>

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you please change this to Intenode... Instead of InterNode with a lower case N?
This was the final name which has been chosen in my PR to conform with officials docs

</td>
<td>false</td>
</tr><tr>
<td>dpInterNodeEncryptionCertificateSecretName</td>

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ditto (and many more in this PR)

### Prerequisites
- Internode encryption must be enabled (`dataInternodeEncryption: true`)

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don’t think that’s accurate. Could you provide a reference if I’m mistaken?
This feature should allow customers to use their own certificates without requiring them to use self-signed certificates first. Enabling the dataInternodeEncryption field, however, forces customers to use self-signed certificates.

### Prerequisites
- Internode encryption must be enabled (`dataInternodeEncryption: true`)

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ditto

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants