Re: HTTP/2 and no-longer "experimental"

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 11:46 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > I have the impression that mod_http2 implementation in 2.6 is > already cleaner and more maintainable, owing to enhancements > Stefan already contributed and those parts of the implementation > that httpd 2.4 had

Re: HTTP/2 and no-longer "experimental"

On May 31, 2017 1:32 PM, "Helmut K. C. Tessarek" wrote: On 2017-05-31 11:46, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > If my assumptions above are wrong, ignore this thought... but if > the goal is to drive adoption of our 2.6 implementation of http2, > then simply dropping "experimental"

Re: HTTP/2 and no-longer "experimental"

On 2017-05-31 11:46, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > If my assumptions above are wrong, ignore this thought... but if > the goal is to drive adoption of our 2.6 implementation of http2, > then simply dropping "experimental" seems unwise. Upgrading > its status from "experimental" (which I read as

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

The suggestion is to push out any 2.4 release indefinately for an experimental feature which is promoted in another thread for promotion to a GA designation? Just a sanity check of my sense of irony :) On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 6:59 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > I think we should

Re: Ideas from ApacheCon

> On 23 May 2017, at 09:16, Jim Riggs wrote: > >> On 18 May 2017, at 13:22, Rainer Jung wrote: >> >> Am 18.05.2017 um 19:46 schrieb Jim Jagielski: >>> Based on feedback from various sessions: >>> >>> o A new-kind of "hot standby" in mod_proxy

Re: HTTP/2 and no-longer "experimental"

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 7:07 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > There was discussion some time ago about dropping the "experimental" > tag from our HTTP/2 implementation. It is causing loads of people > to not use it, as well as allowing for the perpetuation of FUD that > httpd really

Re: HTTP/2 and no-longer "experimental"

On 31 May 2017, at 2:07 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > There was discussion some time ago about dropping the "experimental" > tag from our HTTP/2 implementation. It is causing loads of people > to not use it, as well as allowing for the perpetuation of FUD that > httpd really

Re: Broken OCSP Stapling

Hi, On Wed, 31 May 2017 07:45:23 -0500 Jim Riggs wrote: > This was mentioned in today's Bulletproof TLS newsletter > (https://www.feistyduck.com/bulletproof-tls-newsletter/issue_28_lets_encrypt_downtime.html): > >

Broken OCSP Stapling

This was mentioned in today's Bulletproof TLS newsletter (https://www.feistyduck.com/bulletproof-tls-newsletter/issue_28_lets_encrypt_downtime.html): https://blog.hboeck.de/archives/886-The-Problem-with-OCSP-Stapling-and-Must-Staple-and-why-Certificate-Revocation-is-still-broken.html It

Re: HTTP/2 and no-longer "experimental"

+1! -- Daniel Ruggeri Original Message From: Jim Jagielski Sent: May 31, 2017 7:07:21 AM CDT To: httpd-dev Subject: HTTP/2 and no-longer "experimental" There was discussion some time ago about dropping the "experimental" tag from our

Re: HTTP/2 and no-longer "experimental"

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > There was discussion some time ago about dropping the "experimental" > tag from our HTTP/2 implementation. It is causing loads of people > to not use it, as well as allowing for the perpetuation of FUD that > httpd really

HTTP/2 and no-longer "experimental"

There was discussion some time ago about dropping the "experimental" tag from our HTTP/2 implementation. It is causing loads of people to not use it, as well as allowing for the perpetuation of FUD that httpd really doesn't support HTTP/2. I'd like for 2.4.26 to be the release that removes that

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

I think we should wait on a T to resolve this issue... > On May 30, 2017, at 9:12 AM, Stefan Eissing > wrote: > > I have one report of a CPU busy loop that seems to only happen on the last 3 > changes in mod_http2. Steffen is currently testing if a feature