Re: Confusion about SSLProxyCheckPeerName/CN

2016-06-01 Thread Ruediger Pluem
On 06/01/2016 05:45 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Ruediger Pluem > wrote: > > > > On 06/01/2016 04:19 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > Correcting one typo, below... > > > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:19 AM, William

[RESULTS] [POLL] Commitment to 2.2.x lifecycle? (Was: End of the road of 2.2.x maintenance?)

2016-06-01 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:11 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > So let's try this... would 2.2.x maintainers and PMC folks please answer > this > poll -if- you have an intention to help throughout the wind-down of 2.2.x, > since > this is all predicated on having committed-committers to participat

Re: Confusion about SSLProxyCheckPeerName/CN

2016-06-01 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: > > > On 06/01/2016 04:19 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > Correcting one typo, below... > > > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:19 AM, William A Rowe Jr > wrote: > > > > > > Proposal... > > > > CheckPeerName Che

Re: Confusion about SSLProxyCheckPeerName/CN

2016-06-01 Thread Ruediger Pluem
On 06/01/2016 04:19 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > Correcting one typo, below... > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:19 AM, William A Rowe Jr > wrote: > > > Proposal... > > CheckPeerName CheckPeerCN > unset | onunset | onCheckPeerName verification >

Re: Confusion about SSLProxyCheckPeerName/CN

2016-06-01 Thread William A Rowe Jr
Correcting one typo, below... On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:19 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > Proposal... > > CheckPeerName CheckPeerCN > unset | onunset | onCheckPeerName verification > off on*CheckPeerCN* verification > off unset | off no verification

Re: Confusion about SSLProxyCheckPeerName/CN

2016-06-01 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: > > On 05/31/2016 06:37 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > It seems the behavior introduced in 2.4.5 is causing a lot > > of confusion for users attempting to disable peer checking. > > > > Right now, nothing needs to be done to do deep inspect

Re: [POLL] Commitment to 2.2.x lifecycle? (Was: End of the road of 2.2.x maintenance?)

2016-06-01 Thread Joe Orton
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:11:40AM -0500, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > you are personally prepared to participate. [If you aren't a 2.2.x > legacy branch participant, testing RCs or applying backports, then no > response is needed.] > > *) I intend to help maintain/test 2.2.x releases over the n