On 31.03.2015 19:12, j...@apache.org wrote:
Author: jim
Date: Tue Mar 31 17:12:51 2015
New Revision: 1670397
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1670397
Log:
ALPN support, based on mod_spdy/mod_h2 patch set
Modified:
httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/ssl/mod_ssl.c
Any reason to differ from trunk in 2.4?
The people using spdy already in a 2.4 will most likely have the NPN patch
deployed, so they'll have it easy with the trunk changes. The only one using
the alpn patch, I know of, is myself in mod_h2. And that has already been
adapted.
So, I myself see
It seems reasonable to focus on ALPN support, and generally dropping
NPN from trunk. NPN is already on a decline, and won't be used going
forward.
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 12:44 AM, Stefan Eissing
stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de wrote:
Any reason to differ from trunk in 2.4?
The people using spdy
Jim,
today I converted your commit to a path on 2.4.12 and tested it with mod_h2.
All fine!
Then I got a trouble report that alpn negotiation always selected http/1.1
unless SSLAlpnPreference configured something else. This is due to the
deterministic ordering and http/1.1. h2. So, I made a
Well, I took the trunk version, diffed to 2.4.12 and made a patch for my
sandbox build (removed the non alpn/npn parts). That works for mod_h2 after
adding callbacks for the npn stuff.
I have no real pref to keep npn and alpn separate or not. my thought when
merging these was that npn will go
Thanks! Added in 1670738.
On Apr 1, 2015, at 12:22 PM, Stefan Eissing stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de
wrote:
Jim,
today I converted your commit to a path on 2.4.12 and tested it with mod_h2.
All fine!
Then I got a trouble report that alpn negotiation always selected http/1.1
unless
Yeah, there is some overlap which I'm trying to grok,
since trunk had NPN but not ALPN, so I tried to have the
ALPN stuff self-contained. But not sure if that's the best
way since, for example, alpn_proposefns is adjusted
in ssl_callback_AdvertiseNextProtos(), but that is a
NPN only function in
Hi Stefan,
Am 01.04.2015 um 18:22 schrieb Stefan Eissing:
Jim,
today I converted your commit to a path on 2.4.12 and tested it with mod_h2.
All fine!
Then I got a trouble report that alpn negotiation always selected http/1.1 unless SSLAlpnPreference
configured something else. This is due to
Yeah, I agree. Right now, trunk pretty much uses
#ifdef HAVE_TLS_ALPN
blah blah
#endif
#ifdef HAVE_TLS_NPN
blah2 blah2
#endif
Instead of
#if defined(HAVE_TLS_NPN) || defined(HAVE_TLS_ALPN)
so that ripping out NPN would be easier. The
Hmmm.. missed a patch.
r1670434
On Mar 31, 2015, at 2:28 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Hmmm... let me double check.
On Mar 31, 2015, at 2:22 PM, Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org wrote:
On 03/31/2015 08:08 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
They are used by mod_spdy and/or
They are used by mod_spdy and/or mod_h2..., iirc
On Mar 31, 2015, at 1:57 PM, Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org wrote:
On 03/31/2015 07:12 PM, j...@apache.org wrote:
Author: jim
Date: Tue Mar 31 17:12:51 2015
New Revision: 1670397
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1670397
Log:
ALPN
On 03/31/2015 07:12 PM, j...@apache.org wrote:
Author: jim
Date: Tue Mar 31 17:12:51 2015
New Revision: 1670397
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1670397
Log:
ALPN support, based on mod_spdy/mod_h2 patch set
Modified:
httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/ssl/mod_ssl.c
On 03/31/2015 08:08 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
They are used by mod_spdy and/or mod_h2..., iirc
They use private structures of mod_ssl directly? That does not sound like a
good idea.
Regards
Rüdiger
On Mar 31, 2015, at 1:57 PM, Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org wrote:
On 03/31/2015
Hmmm... let me double check.
On Mar 31, 2015, at 2:22 PM, Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org wrote:
On 03/31/2015 08:08 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
They are used by mod_spdy and/or mod_h2..., iirc
They use private structures of mod_ssl directly? That does not sound like a
good idea.
14 matches
Mail list logo
