Ruediger Pluem wrote: > > > 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.
I improved the comment (r1555240). IMHO the checks still make sense. Regards Rüdiger