On Wednesday 16 May 2018 17:32:56 Jack Burton wrote:
> My attempts to get this accepted last year stalled.
>
> As best I recall, the main stumbling block was agreeing on how much /
> exactly which client cert data to pass through to fastcgi (my view was
> that passing the whole client cert chain w
It will! The diff is nice and OK.
> Am 16.05.2018 um 22:33 schrieb Jan Klemkow :
>
> Hi Jack,
>
>> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 05:32:56PM +0930, Jack Burton wrote:
>> I figured that if we can agree on this much, so httpd can be used for
>> the authentication-only case (which is all non-fastcgi sites
Hi Jack,
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 05:32:56PM +0930, Jack Burton wrote:
> I figured that if we can agree on this much, so httpd can be used for
> the authentication-only case (which is all non-fastcgi sites would want)
> straight away, that's be a good first step -- then we can come back and
> argue
My attempts to get this accepted last year stalled.
As best I recall, the main stumbling block was agreeing on how much /
exactly which client cert data to pass through to fastcgi (my view was
that passing the whole client cert chain would be ideal).
So, here's a stripped down version that passes
