> Am 15.10.2018 um 15:58 schrieb Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com>:
>
> Considering all this, I am changing my vote from a +1 to a -1. I was not able
> to trigger this error, but this shows, at least IMO, that TLS 1.3 support
> isn't quite yet tested enough to warrant a public release, unless we are
> super clear that it is "experimental" or "early access"...
I do not see it this black/white way.
We have found no regression with any SSL != OpenSSL 1.1.1.
We have not even found a bug with TLSv1.3 as such. What we have found is a
behaviour change in OpenSSL where our code relied on either changed or not well
documented behaviour.
We do not want to ship a version of httpd which has severe interop problems
with the released openssl 1.1.1.
HOWEVER: it is unclear, if this will not also trigger in some scenario when one
links 2.4.35 with OpenSSL 1.1.1.
I am all in favor of pushing a 2.4.37 immediately after this bug is fixed. We
will not solve any remaining problems by letting it stew in the repository.
-Stefan
>
>> On Oct 15, 2018, at 4:06 AM, Stefan Eissing <stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Am 14.10.2018 um 23:46 schrieb Daniel Ruggeri <drugg...@primary.net>:
>>>
>>> Hi, Helmut;
>>> Note that the vote may run longer than 72 hours as 72 is the minimum. As it
>>> stands now, we have more than 3 binding +1 votes, but I am waiting for
>>> closure on the conversation on-list about the tests with reported H2/TLS
>>> 1.3 failures. Since this is one of the primary features of this release, I
>>> want to be sure the topic gets due attention.
>>
>> See my mail on the other thread. It seems that h2 traffic triggers a call
>> sequence that exposes a change in OpenSSL behaviour of SSL_read() between
>> 1.1.0 and 1.1.1. It looks as if mod_ssl interpreted the return codes of
>> SSL_read() in a way that no longer works and that we need to change mod_ssl
>> handling here.
>>
>> Waiting on confirmation or rebuttal of my analysis on the other thread.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Stefan
>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Ruggeri
>>>
>>> On October 14, 2018 4:44:04 PM CDT, "Helmut K. C. Tessarek"
>>> <tessa...@evermeet.cx> wrote:
>>> On 2018-10-10 15:18, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>>> Hi, all;
>>> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>>>
>>> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
>>> candidate tarball as 2.4.36:
>>> [ ] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
>>> [ ] +0: Let's have a talk.
>>> [ ] -1: There's trouble in paradise. Here's what's wrong.
>>>
>>> The computed digests of the tarball up for vote are:
>>> sha1: e40e7a879b84df860215b8a80f2a535534a1c4b4 *httpd-2.4.36.tar.gz
>>> sha256: ef788fb7c814acb2506a8b758a1a3f91f368f97bd4e6db16e98001f468e8e288
>>> *httpd-2.4.36.tar.gz
>>>
>>> 72h have passed, so what is the outcome of the vote?
>>>
>>
>
