Gervase Markham wrote:
Short version: I am hoping to find out what the problems are with the trunk version of TLS/SNI, how they can be fixed, and what the chances are of a backport to 2.2.
According to STATUS:
+1: fuankg
+0: like ssl upgrade of 2.2, perhaps this is a good reason to bring
httpd-2.4 to completion? vhost changes could be disruptive to
third party module authors.
-1: rpluem: jorton found some problems with the trunk version and
they
should be fixed / discussed in trunk before we backport.
pquerna: Until issues for this feature are fixed in trunk, we
can not
backport it.
Can the various people above clarify exactly which issues are
outstanding for the above?
Searching for jorton and SNI finds a whole lot of development discussion, but no concise description of issues outstanding.
For the benefit of people wanting to know what criteria there are for backporting patches to previous versions of httpd, binary ABI compatibility is crucial to make sure that third party modules will stay working when httpd is upgraded to a new point release.
If the changes involve amendments to data structures that render the ABI incompatible (and depending on the impact of the change, sometimes this is unavoidable), the backport cannot happen, and the feature will only be available in the next version of httpd, which is v2.4.
Efforts are underway to begin releasing alpha versions of what is to become httpd v2.4, so SNI support is not far away regardless.
Regards, Graham --
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
