You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> on 2017/11/28 15:51:26 UTC
mod_ssl and SSLPolicy
As one of the folks that answers questions on IRC, I would like to
object to the existence of SSLPolicy and <SSLPolicy>. 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
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
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 <rb...@rcbowen.com>:
>>
>> As one of the folks that answers questions on IRC, I would like to object to the existence of SSLPolicy and <SSLPolicy>. 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
Posted by Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Gillis J. de Nijs <gi...@jink.net> wrote:
> Could it be as simple as changing <SSLPolicy> to <SSLPolicyDefine> 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).
<ManagedDomainDefine> / ManagedDomain could also work (re other thread).
Regards,
Yann.
Re: mod_ssl and SSLPolicy
Posted by "Gillis J. de Nijs" <gi...@jink.net>.
Could it be as simple as changing <SSLPolicy> to <SSLPolicyDefine> and
leaving SSLPolicy as it is?
Cheers,
Gillis
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Stefan Eissing <
stefan.eissing@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 <rb...@rcbowen.com>:
> >
> > As one of the folks that answers questions on IRC, I would like to
> object to the existence of SSLPolicy and <SSLPolicy>. 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
Posted by Stefan Eissing <st...@greenbytes.de>.
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 <rb...@rcbowen.com>:
>
> As one of the folks that answers questions on IRC, I would like to object to the existence of SSLPolicy and <SSLPolicy>. 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
Posted by Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk>.
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
> '<SSLPolicy' -> '<SSLPolicyDefine'
>
> (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
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
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 <st...@greenbytes.de>:
>> Thanks for all the input. What I see is consensus about the SSLPolicy change:
>>
>> 'SSLPolicy' -> stay as is
>> '<SSLPolicy' -> '<SSLPolicyDefine'
>>
>> (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.
Sounds fine to me. I will also respect your decision if you choose not
to make this change, as I said elsewhere in the thread.
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Stefan
>>
>>> Am 03.12.2017 um 11:16 schrieb Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>:
>>>
>>> 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 <SSLPolicy>. 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 <SSLPolicy> to <SSLPolicyDefinition>.
>>>
>>> One other solution would by keeping <SSLPolicy> and rewnaming the simple directive to SSLPolicyApply.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Rainer
>
>
Re: mod_ssl and SSLPolicy
Posted by Daniel <df...@gmail.com>.
Sounds like a good change if anyone asks me. :)
2017-12-04 13:39 GMT+01:00 Stefan Eissing <st...@greenbytes.de>:
> Thanks for all the input. What I see is consensus about the SSLPolicy change:
>
> 'SSLPolicy' -> stay as is
> '<SSLPolicy' -> '<SSLPolicyDefine'
>
> (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 <ra...@kippdata.de>:
>>
>> 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 <SSLPolicy>. 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 <SSLPolicy> to <SSLPolicyDefinition>.
>>
>> One other solution would by keeping <SSLPolicy> 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
Posted by Stefan Eissing <st...@greenbytes.de>.
Thanks for all the input. What I see is consensus about the SSLPolicy change:
'SSLPolicy' -> stay as is
'<SSLPolicy' -> '<SSLPolicyDefine'
(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 <ra...@kippdata.de>:
>
> 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 <SSLPolicy>. 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 <SSLPolicy> to <SSLPolicyDefinition>.
>
> One other solution would by keeping <SSLPolicy> and rewnaming the simple directive to SSLPolicyApply.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rainer
Re: mod_ssl and SSLPolicy
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
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 <SSLPolicy>. 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 <SSLPolicy>
to <SSLPolicyDefinition>.
One other solution would by keeping <SSLPolicy> and rewnaming the simple
directive to SSLPolicyApply.
Regards,
Rainer