Kaspar Brand wrote: > On 21.12.2013 14:21, Ruediger Pluem wrote: >>> I guess a more general fix for this would be: >> >> No further comments / feedback? If not then I would commit the patch. > > The change looks fine to me (for easier comparison/review, > a whitespace-change-ignoring version is attached). > > What would probably make sense is to amend the following comment > on this occasion: > > /* > * The SNI extension supplied a hostname. So don't accept requests > * with either no hostname or a different hostname. > */ > > It doesn't say anything about the rationale right now, and as > recent discussions have shown, it would be helpful to explain > why this is done.
Done. I have tried to improve the comment and added a TODO if my reasoning for the checks is really true. Regards Rüdiger
