Re: mod_ssl and SSLPolicy

[Mads Toftum]

On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 01:39:08PM +0100, Stefan Eissing wrote:
> Thanks for all the input. What I see is consensus about the SSLPolicy change:
> 
> 'SSLPolicy'  -> stay as is
> ' ' 
> (I prefer the verb above the noun here since mod_ssl uses verbs in other 
> config name.)
> 
Looks better that way to me too.

vh

Mads Toftum
-- 
http://flickr.com/photos/q42/

Re: mod_ssl and SSLPolicy

[Rich Bowen]

On 12/04/2017 07:56 AM, Daniel wrote:

Sounds like a good change if anyone asks me. :)

2017-12-04 13:39 GMT+01:00 Stefan Eissing :

Thanks for all the input. What I see is consensus about the SSLPolicy change:

'SSLPolicy'  -> stay as is
' ':

Am 28.11.2017 um 16:51 schrieb Rich Bowen:

As one of the folks that answers questions on IRC, I would like to object to the 
existence of SSLPolicy and . I think it's unwise to have two 
directives with the same name, for reasons of end-user support.
As long as it's still only in trunk, we still have an opportunity to avert user 
confusion.
I request that one of these be renamed. (No, I'm not suggesting specific names. 
I suck at naming things.)

What about keeping the simple SSLPolicy directive (the name of the policy to apply) and 
renaming the container directive from  to .

One other solution would by keeping  and rewnaming the simple 
directive to SSLPolicyApply.

Regards,

Rainer

Re: mod_ssl and SSLPolicy

[Rich Bowen]

On 11/29/2017 04:23 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote:

Having slept a night over this and the mod_md config change request, I say
this leaves me somewhat sour. A request for an unspecified change by
someone important in this project is basically blocking any progress for me.

I am sure that was not your intention, but I feel the current choice of
naming good, because that is why they are there, and I am not convinced
that any alternative I come up with falls on fertile ground. That could
lead to a groundhog day experience with me doing the work and others
saying 'nah!' afterwards.


I'm very sorry, that was not at all my intention. I am merely trying to 
avoid user confusion. If you disagree, just say so, and I'll drop it.




This change is obviously important to you, so please lead a consensus on
how it should be changed. The code change I will then do afterwards if
no one else feels like it.

Cheers,

Stefan


Am 28.11.2017 um 16:51 schrieb Rich Bowen :

As one of the folks that answers questions on IRC, I would like to object to the 
existence of SSLPolicy and . I think it's unwise to have two 
directives with the same name, for reasons of end-user support.

As long as it's still only in trunk, we still have an opportunity to avert user 
confusion.

I request that one of these be renamed. (No, I'm not suggesting specific names. 
I suck at naming things.)

Thanks.

--Rich

Re: mod_ssl and SSLPolicy

[Daniel]

Sounds like a good change if anyone asks me. :)

2017-12-04 13:39 GMT+01:00 Stefan Eissing :
> Thanks for all the input. What I see is consensus about the SSLPolicy change:
>
> 'SSLPolicy'  -> stay as is
> ' '
> (I prefer the verb above the noun here since mod_ssl uses verbs in other 
> config name.)
>
> If no one objects, I will go for this change in the next days.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Stefan
>
>> Am 03.12.2017 um 11:16 schrieb Rainer Jung :
>>
>> Am 28.11.2017 um 16:51 schrieb Rich Bowen:
>>> As one of the folks that answers questions on IRC, I would like to object 
>>> to the existence of SSLPolicy and . I think it's unwise to have 
>>> two directives with the same name, for reasons of end-user support.
>>> As long as it's still only in trunk, we still have an opportunity to avert 
>>> user confusion.
>>> I request that one of these be renamed. (No, I'm not suggesting specific 
>>> names. I suck at naming things.)
>>
>> What about keeping the simple SSLPolicy directive (the name of the policy to 
>> apply) and renaming the container directive from  to 
>> .
>>
>> One other solution would by keeping  and rewnaming the simple 
>> directive to SSLPolicyApply.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Rainer
>



-- 
Daniel Ferradal
IT Specialist

email dferradal at gmail.com
linkedin es.linkedin.com/in/danielferradal

Re: mod_ssl and SSLPolicy

[Stefan Eissing]

Thanks for all the input. What I see is consensus about the SSLPolicy change:

'SSLPolicy'  -> stay as is
' ' Am 03.12.2017 um 11:16 schrieb Rainer Jung :
> 
> Am 28.11.2017 um 16:51 schrieb Rich Bowen:
>> As one of the folks that answers questions on IRC, I would like to object to 
>> the existence of SSLPolicy and . I think it's unwise to have two 
>> directives with the same name, for reasons of end-user support.
>> As long as it's still only in trunk, we still have an opportunity to avert 
>> user confusion.
>> I request that one of these be renamed. (No, I'm not suggesting specific 
>> names. I suck at naming things.)
> 
> What about keeping the simple SSLPolicy directive (the name of the policy to 
> apply) and renaming the container directive from  to 
> .
> 
> One other solution would by keeping  and rewnaming the simple 
> directive to SSLPolicyApply.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Rainer

Re: mod_ssl and SSLPolicy

[Rainer Jung]

Am 28.11.2017 um 16:51 schrieb Rich Bowen:
As one of the folks that answers questions on IRC, I would like to 
object to the existence of SSLPolicy and . I think it's 
unwise to have two directives with the same name, for reasons of 
end-user support.


As long as it's still only in trunk, we still have an opportunity to 
avert user confusion.


I request that one of these be renamed. (No, I'm not suggesting specific 
names. I suck at naming things.)


What about keeping the simple SSLPolicy directive (the name of the 
policy to apply) and renaming the container directive from  
to .


One other solution would by keeping  and rewnaming the simple 
directive to SSLPolicyApply.


Regards,

Rainer

Re: mod_ssl and SSLPolicy

[Yann Ylavic]

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Gillis J. de Nijs  wrote:
> Could it be as simple as changing  to  and
> leaving SSLPolicy as it is?

This would work for me, I'll be quite consensual anyway (e.g. I'm fine
with SSLPolicy for both too).

 / ManagedDomain could also work (re other thread).


Regards,
Yann.

Re: mod_ssl and SSLPolicy

[Gillis J. de Nijs]

Could it be as simple as changing  to  and
leaving SSLPolicy as it is?

Cheers,
Gillis

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Stefan Eissing <
stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> wrote:

> Having slept a night over this and the mod_md config change request, I say
> this leaves me somewhat sour. A request for an unspecified change by
> someone important in this project is basically blocking any progress for
> me.
>
> I am sure that was not your intention, but I feel the current choice of
> naming good, because that is why they are there, and I am not convinced
> that any alternative I come up with falls on fertile ground. That could
> lead to a groundhog day experience with me doing the work and others
> saying 'nah!' afterwards.
>
> This change is obviously important to you, so please lead a consensus on
> how it should be changed. The code change I will then do afterwards if
> no one else feels like it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Stefan
>
> > Am 28.11.2017 um 16:51 schrieb Rich Bowen :
> >
> > As one of the folks that answers questions on IRC, I would like to
> object to the existence of SSLPolicy and . I think it's unwise
> to have two directives with the same name, for reasons of end-user support.
> >
> > As long as it's still only in trunk, we still have an opportunity to
> avert user confusion.
> >
> > I request that one of these be renamed. (No, I'm not suggesting specific
> names. I suck at naming things.)
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > --Rich
>
>

Re: mod_ssl and SSLPolicy

[Stefan Eissing]

Having slept a night over this and the mod_md config change request, I say
this leaves me somewhat sour. A request for an unspecified change by 
someone important in this project is basically blocking any progress for me.

I am sure that was not your intention, but I feel the current choice of
naming good, because that is why they are there, and I am not convinced 
that any alternative I come up with falls on fertile ground. That could
lead to a groundhog day experience with me doing the work and others
saying 'nah!' afterwards.

This change is obviously important to you, so please lead a consensus on
how it should be changed. The code change I will then do afterwards if
no one else feels like it.

Cheers,

Stefan 

> Am 28.11.2017 um 16:51 schrieb Rich Bowen :
> 
> As one of the folks that answers questions on IRC, I would like to object to 
> the existence of SSLPolicy and . I think it's unwise to have two 
> directives with the same name, for reasons of end-user support.
> 
> As long as it's still only in trunk, we still have an opportunity to avert 
> user confusion.
> 
> I request that one of these be renamed. (No, I'm not suggesting specific 
> names. I suck at naming things.)
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> --Rich

mod_ssl and SSLPolicy

[Rich Bowen]

As one of the folks that answers questions on IRC, I would like to 
object to the existence of SSLPolicy and . I think it's 
unwise to have two directives with the same name, for reasons of 
end-user support.


As long as it's still only in trunk, we still have an opportunity to 
avert user confusion.


I request that one of these be renamed. (No, I'm not suggesting specific 
names. I suck at naming things.)


Thanks.

--Rich