Ah, yes, 'name-based' was the missing phrase. =) That would be a really
nice feature for many sites.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Laurie [SMTP:ben@algroup.co.uk]
> Sent: Monday, July 19, 1999 6:46 AM
> To: new-httpd@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Upcoming 'Upgrade' draft
>
> "Ritcey, Benjamin" wrote:
> >
> > [de-lurk]
> >
> > If I'm understanding this correctly, this would allow the
> long-sought-after
> > SSL virtual host, no?
>
> You mean name-based SSL virtual hosts, I presume? In which case, yes.
> IP/port-based SSL virtual hosts have always been possible, of course.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ben.
>
> >
> > [re-lurk]
> > > Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This may be old news, but it was new to me..
> > > >
> > > > At the Security Area open meeting yesterday at IETF-45, Rohit Khare
> > > mentioned
> > > > an upcoming draft defining an extension permitting a transaction to
> > > > open with HTTP, and then 'upgrade' to something like HTTPS. As I
> > > > recall, the user agent would make an 'OPTIONS *' request with an
> > > > 'Upgrade: https' header field, and if the response indicated an
> > > > upgrade were possible, the user agent and server could negociate
> > > > to switch to HTTPS. Or whatever.
> > >
>
> --
> http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
>
> "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
> who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
> first group; there was less competition there."
> - Indira Gandhi
|