httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rich Bowen <>
Subject Re: A review of SSL docs WAS Re: A proposal from Symantec for cleaning up the SSL-related documentation for Apache's HTTPD
Date Thu, 05 Apr 2012 13:08:49 GMT

On Apr 4, 2012, at 7:20 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:

> - The examples are
> still valid in today's world. I'm not sure if this particular doc is the
> place.... but having SSL proxy examples would also be helpful since all
> of those directives actually come from mod_ssl (and there are pointers
> in the proxy doco to mod_ssl). Thoughts?

Yes, that would be awesome.

> - No rubbish here.
> I think this document is outstanding.


> - This document
> may no longer be relevant. There have been so many changes since
> creation that I think this doc could be scrapped or repurposed to
> discuss integration issues only. Some examples would include notes about
> older browsers and supported levels of crypto, the emergence of TLS1.1,
> SNI and compatible browsers, OCSP, etc. I'm willing to take a whack at
> it and will write a bug to make myself do it in the coming days if the
> list agrees.
> - Could use a
> general refreshing... most of the content isn't bad, but it could stand
> to be reorganized. Does anyone else kind of feel like this kind of
> document would be better served as a wiki article?

I don't much care where the doc is, as long as everything is interlinked so that someone doesn't
have to go hunting for it. Having it in the doc, rather than in the wiki, has the advantage
that it's there on an installed system and accessible without going out to the network.

> By the way, great job on these docs. SSL is a tough topic and I think
> there is more than enough content here to get someone going and keep
> them going for a while. It reads like an expert wrote it for fledgeling
> server admin and I'm not sure I agree with a lot of the assertions made
> about the content recently.

Those comments come entirely from my ignorance of the topic. My apologies.

Rich Bowen :: @rbowen

View raw message