That is why mod_h2 allowe "H2Engine on|off" on base server and vhosts. If I
understand you correctly, this does what you ask for.
//Stefan
> Am 03.06.2015 um 19:45 schrieb William A Rowe Jr :
>
>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Stefan Eissing
>> wrote:
>> Hmm, personally, I do not like re
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote:
> Hmm, personally, I do not like redundant configurations. If someone
> configures a module, like mod_h2, to be enabled (H2Engine on), she could
> expect the module to take all the necessary steps. So I am no fan of a
> „SSLAlpnEnable“.
>
The
With the current (master) code of mod_h2, you'd probably need
something like the attached patch to handle a possible failure in
modssl_register_alpn(), because SSLALPNPreference was not configured
(as per my proposed mod_ssl patch).
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Stefan Eissing
wrote:
> Hmm, I c
Hmm, I cannot test this today since I am travelling.
If Jim wants to tag 2.5.13 this week, then either the current v4 patch makes it
in, or we need to postpone this. A changed patch on which my module (and
possibly others) chokes on, will not serve anyone I assume.
As with the "don't send NPN
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>
> This means enabling ALPN only if SSLALPNPreference is used.
Something like below :
Index: modules/ssl/mod_ssl.c
===
--- modules/ssl/mod_ssl.c(revision 1683271)
+++ modules/s
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Stefan Eissing
wrote:
> Hmm, personally, I do not like redundant configurations. If someone
> configures a module, like mod_h2, to be enabled (H2Engine on), she could
> expect the module to take all the necessary steps. So I am no fan of a
> „SSLAlpnEnable“.
Nei
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Stefan Eissing
wrote:
>
> If a client sends ALPN information in its hello, it certainly can expect an
> answer from the server.
> Since in absence of any other modules, the httpd will do „http/1.1“, I think
> that is a reasonable response.
FWICS, httpd will alert
On 06/03/2015 03:43 PM, Stefan Eissing wrote:
Hmm, personally, I do not like redundant configurations. If someone configures
a module, like mod_h2, to be enabled (H2Engine on), she could expect the module
to take all the necessary steps. So I am no fan of a „SSLAlpnEnable“.
If a client sends A
I additionally tested today on Ubuntu 14.04 LTS. Works for me.
> Am 03.06.2015 um 12:56 schrieb Stefan Eissing :
>
> I tested the lined patch on a 2.4.x checkout with mod_h2 on OS X 10.10 and
> openssl 1.0.2. All my tests ran fine.
>
> //Stefan
>
>> Am 02.06.2015 um 16:56 schrieb Eric Covener
Hmm, personally, I do not like redundant configurations. If someone configures
a module, like mod_h2, to be enabled (H2Engine on), she could expect the module
to take all the necessary steps. So I am no fan of a „SSLAlpnEnable“.
If a client sends ALPN information in its hello, it certainly can e
I wonder if registering the ssl_callback_alpn_select callback
inconditionally could break some clients.
Are those (ALPN ready) always negociate "http/1.1"?
Otherwise we could check for sc->server->ssl_alpn_pref->nelts > 0 (or
a dedicated SSLAlpnEnable) beforing using
SSL_CTX_set_alpn_select_cb().
I tested the lined patch on a 2.4.x checkout with mod_h2 on OS X 10.10 and
openssl 1.0.2. All my tests ran fine.
//Stefan
> Am 02.06.2015 um 16:56 schrieb Eric Covener :
>
> Can you test the latest rev of the backport candidate?
>
> http://people.apache.org/~ylavic/httpd-2.4.x-alpn-v4.patch
>
I tried to reconcile your patch with your svn log entry and I failed.
Could you either correct or explain further?
TIA,
Bill
On Jun 2, 2015 12:40 AM, wrote:
> Author: jailletc36
> Date: Tue Jun 2 05:40:57 2015
> New Revision: 1683044
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1683044
> Log:
> Skip a few
13 matches
Mail list logo
