* Bruce Momjian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I had to stuble together a Certificate Revocation List (CRL) patch for > 8.2 from soneone's posted patch. I didn't even know what CRL was, and > got no feedback from the community, so I had to figure it out myself to > get it into CVS (for server and client sides) and documented.
I recall talking about CRLs on the lists at one point and encouraging
their inclusion. I would have been happy to explain what they are and
why they're good to have (along with OCSP support...). I thought you
were included in that discussion.
> If I couldn't get community help for getting a patch documented for 8.2,
> what help are we going to get to maintain two ways of doing SSL?
My apologies for not responding to the request (I think I did see it,
though I can't recall for sure). I don't consider myself an SSL or
X.509 expert but I've got some experience with it and would be happy to
help as I can...
> For some reason, SSL seems to have more black magic than other
> libraries.
It's more the certs and X.509, ASN1, etc, that's black magic, imv. :)
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
