Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
>
> The problem is that there are two classes of variables: Historical ones and
> cleaned-up ones, at least in mod_ssl.
The CGI/1.1 spec is describing 'current practice,' so anything
currently in widespread use should be documented, with 'MAYs' or
'SHOULD's as appropriate.
> Because
> your CGI/1.1 RFC should provide a new base to avoid more diversions, it sounds
> reasonable that you make your CGI/1.1 SSL variables a reasonable compromise
> between the historical ones and cleaned-up ones. Let you be inspired by the
> cleaned up ones. For mod_ssl I was able to solve the problem easily
> by providing a variable mapping. For such an RFC your task is more
> complicated to choose the best variable names, of course.
Absolutely not. 'Current practice' means describing what's deployed,
not what we'd like to see. Any sort of cleanup or wishes are to
go into the CGI/1.2 draft, which won't be started until 1.1 has
been done, so we have a stable base upon which to build.
Thaks for the pointer to the tables. Anyone have any additional
information? (I haven't looked at the URLs yet, but) Do these
apply to Apache-SSL and Stronhold as well, or just mod_ssl?
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Group member <http://www.apache.org/>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/ASFD/>
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
