On 09.10.2013 15:52, Dr Stephen Henson wrote:
> It's tempting to just add a directive but after some thought I think expanding
> Apache SSL_CONF handling is the way to go. This would add some future proofing
> so we don't have to go through this all again in future.
Yes, please. Let's not perpetua
On 10/10/2013 23:18, Trevor Perrin wrote:
>
> How would you expect the code to track the Cert -> ServerInfo
> relationship between these points?
>
Disclaimer: it's been a while since I looked at that code and someone else might
have a better idea. It didn't quite work in the way I recalled.
It
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Dr Stephen Henson
wrote:
>
> Technically the "current certificate" concept doesn't need exposing at all.
> You
> just have to make sure you set all the relevant parameters *after* you set the
> certificate they apply to and *before* you set another one.
Hi Stephen
Could this be backported please ?
The corresponding 2.4.x patch is attached...
Regards,
Yann.
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 5:30 PM, wrote:
> Author: jim
> Date: Thu Sep 19 15:30:10 2013
> New Revision: 1524770
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1524770
> Log:
> draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-23 fi
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> RFC2616 10.1 (above above) states that "Proxies MUST forward 1xx responses
> [unless client's connection closed]".
> But with the current implementation, the client as nothing to "Continue"
> at that point, its whole body is already gone.
> Si
