On 10.11.2009 16:32, Ian Darwin wrote: > >> >> Isn't the naming a bit harsh? OpenSSl names it legacy renegotiation (to >> make it differ from the future renegotiation with TLS extension). So >> maybe enableLegacyRenegotiation would be better? Of course it wouldn't >> keep people from activating as much as the proposed name does, but on >> the other hand (unfortunately) there are valid use cases to activate it. >> > FWIW, the OpenBSD people have committed their change to their > OpenSSL library, and they used the name > > SSL3_FLAGS_ALLOW_UNSAFE_LEGACY_RENEGOTIATION
Yes, you are right. Omitting the "Unsafe" part of it isn't good, so I would say either allowUnsafeLegacyRenegotiation or enableUnsafeLegacyRenegotiation. Regards, Rainer --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
