Hosting multiple SSL domains

Hi, I am working on a setup to host multiple (~ 100s) sites using apache with SSL support. I looked up and found it is possible to achieve this with server name indication SNI extension of TLS as explained here

Re: RFC 7230..7235 Parsing Conformance?

On 05/17/2016 02:53 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > (Note that HT is a CTL, right, so it appears to be doubly excluded, no?) > CHAR is US-ASCII 0-127. I noticed that too... It seems odd, but it's water under the bridge now, I guess. > The characters missing above from tchar are '"', '(', ')',

Re: RFC 7230..7235 Parsing Conformance?

Based on Jason's question... On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 1:31 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Julian Reschke > wrote: > >> On 2016-05-17 19:01, Graham Leggett wrote: >> >>> On 17 May 2016, at 6:43 PM, William A Rowe Jr

Re: RFC 7230..7235 Parsing Conformance?

On 05/17/2016 11:31 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > One of the more significant is the change to token, > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-2.2 > > token = 1* > > > vs https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230#section-3.2.6 > > token = 1*tchar > > tchar = "!" /

Re: RFC 7230..7235 Parsing Conformance?

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:43 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > Do we want to backport these changes to 2.4.x? If so, what > mechanism do we want to toggle the behavior of the server > between 2616 and 7230..7235? I would piggyback it on the "HttpProtocol" strict stuff that also

Re: RFC 7230..7235 Parsing Conformance?

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2016-05-17 19:01, Graham Leggett wrote: > >> On 17 May 2016, at 6:43 PM, William A Rowe Jr >> wrote: >> >> Wondering what other contributors are thinking on this topic. >>> >>> We have a

Re: RFC 7230..7235 Parsing Conformance?

On 2016-05-17 19:01, Graham Leggett wrote: On 17 May 2016, at 6:43 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: Wondering what other contributors are thinking on this topic. We have a number of changes in the ABNF grammar between RFC2616 and RFC7230..7235. Do we want trunk 2.6/3.0 to be

Re: RFC 7230..7235 Parsing Conformance?

On 17 May 2016, at 6:43 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > Wondering what other contributors are thinking on this topic. > > We have a number of changes in the ABNF grammar between > RFC2616 and RFC7230..7235. Do we want trunk 2.6/3.0 to be > an entirely RFC723x generation

RFC 7230..7235 Parsing Conformance?

Wondering what other contributors are thinking on this topic. We have a number of changes in the ABNF grammar between RFC2616 and RFC7230..7235. Do we want trunk 2.6/3.0 to be an entirely RFC723x generation server, and drop all support for RFC2616? Do we want to backport these changes to 2.4.x?

Re: mod_proxy_hcheck backport

Jim, how do you see the possibility of other proxy modules providing their own hc? HTTP/2 has this nice PING frame that is intended for exactly this. Cheers, Stefan PS. Btw. it's accepted for backport, left the actual work for you... > Am 17.05.2016 um 12:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski

Re: mod_proxy_hcheck backport

> On May 16, 2016, at 3:37 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: > > On 5/16/2016 8:19 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> THANKS! This feature seemed to cause a lot of buzz @ ApacheCon so >> would be > > I believe I heard and/or used the term "sexy" at least once to describe > it ;-) > >

Re: [PATCH] mod_rewrite: support proxying via mod_proxy_http2

Ok, thanks. Your patch was added to trunk in r1744206 and I will propose it for backporting. Cheers, Stefan > Am 13.05.2016 um 12:13 schrieb Evgeny Kotkov : > > Stefan Eissing writes: > >> Hmm, can someone with more brains than me

Re: Extra export for http-trunk http2

Added in r1744204. Good luck with the move! > Am 15.05.2016 um 11:09 schrieb NormW : > > G/E.. > > Another symbol needed ;-( >> Index: modules/http2/NWGNUmod_http2 >> === >> --- modules/http2/NWGNUmod_http2