On Thu, Apr 01, 1999, Randy Terbush wrote:
> [...] I guess I just assumed that he
> understood from those emails that we were looking hard at incorporating
> functionality from mod_ssl.
Yes, I've to admit that I've not assumed that your're looking into migrating
to mod_ssl, because it was never expressed explicitly to me. But no problem,
_now_ we know it, Randy :-). I was just very surprised... and as I explicitly
said: I'm fully supporting your migration to mod_ssl and I was happy when I
finally discovered this.
> I'm sure he also knows
> that making public statements about vaporware can be dangerous so I
> elect not to make it widely known until we have something to offer
> publically.
Yes, of course. But expressing it explicitly to me in private doesn't mean to
make a public statement, of course... I just expected to receive a short and
explicit note in a private mail. That's all. I've not expected that you
announce it to the public before it's done, of course.
> We have been in beta for about 4 months now, so it really
> wasn't that big of a secret. I know that Ralf, like me, has way too
> much to do and it is often hard to stay in touch with everything that
> is going on in this community.
Correct, I've not closely observed the Raven website the last months. But
four months of beta stage sounds like a good and conservative approach. Fine.
BTW, did already any major problems occured because of the mod_ssl migration?
Was and is the response of the customers fully positive or also negative? How
did you solved backward compatibility issues, Randy?
> Regarding Ralf's comments regarding his hope that the mod_ssl
> community would benefit from Covalent's move toward the mod_ssl
> codebase: I think Ralf and others understand that because of US law,
> we unfortunately can't contribute to projects like mod_ssl and
> OpenSSL.
Oh, I think you can contribute a lot, except crypto-related patches when I
understand US-law correctly. Giving hints about documentation errors or
possible enhancements, talking with us about installation issues, discussing
new ideas with us, etc. should all be no problem, shouldn't it? At least I
hope that you don't think that the silly US-export-restrictions are a welcome
reason one can officially avoid any possibiliy to try to contribute something
back... this would be not fair, of course.
>[...]
> I had thought that documentation might be an area where we could cross
> the legal barrier and contribute something more directly to mod_ssl,
> but Ralf has made it clear that he does not care for our documentation
> style. :-)
Style is just an optical issue (and I've to admit that I'm very dogmatic
here), but I'm happy to see content-related feedback, of course.
But IMO currently more interesting are the following questions
(their answers shouldn't fall under US-law restrictions, I think):
1. What exact Apache/mod_ssl/OpenSSL versions does Raven 1.4 contain?
And what are your plans for the future: Do you want to stay at these
versions for a longer time now you've done the hard migration or do you
intent to always keep Raven in sync with the forthcoming mod_ssl/OpenSSL
versions by doing more smart upgrades in shorter release intervals?
2. How much changes you had to apply to mod_ssl and OpenSSL to make
it working inside Raven 1.4? And how can mod_ssl and OpenSSL
be made better to reduce these changes in the future?
3. What things in mod_ssl and OpenSSL bothered you most (and caused
you the most trouble) and what things are your favorite thing (which you
likes very much)? Especially, what are your personal (from the Raven point
of view) wishes for the future?
Ralf S. Engelschall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.engelschall.com
______________________________________________________________________
Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.engelschall.com/sw/mod_ssl/
Official Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
