Rainer Jung wrote: > 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.
I've already committed the first one :) My tests all went well. I am in the process of creating patches for 6.0.x and 5.5.x. Remy - are you able to roll a release? I'm guessing either later today or early tomorrow. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
