Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 3621 invoked from network); 12 Jan 2007 10:57:52 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 12 Jan 2007 10:57:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 2618 invoked by uid 500); 12 Jan 2007 10:57:54 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 2556 invoked by uid 500); 12 Jan 2007 10:57:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 2545 invoked by uid 99); 12 Jan 2007 10:57:54 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 Jan 2007 02:57:54 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [195.238.0.198] (HELO PEXAS01.ISP.BELGACOM.BE) (195.238.0.198) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 Jan 2007 02:57:43 -0800 Received: from [10.129.16.102] ([194.7.54.18]) by PEXAS01.ISP.BELGACOM.BE with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 12 Jan 2007 11:57:21 +0100 Message-ID: <45A76993.1050100@approach.be> Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 11:57:23 +0100 From: Marc Stern - Approach User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Development Apache Subject: Support of OCSP in mod_ssl - bug 41123 References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jan 2007 10:57:21.0136 (UTC) FILETIME=[6EFAFF00:01C73638] X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org I just ported the patch to 2.2.4. These are exactly the modification that are included in the version running for more than a year in several major governmental sites in Belgium (including the biggest one to fill in taxes) - it is thus stable (at least the changes were stable in 2.0.54 ;-) . Could this be included in next version ? I also modified the documentation to reflect the new directives. Should I include it in the same patch, or open a separate patch for the doc ? I have a picture describing the validation process, is it possible to include it in the doc ? Thanks */Marc Stern/*