tomcat-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From André Warnier ...@ice-sa.com>
Subject Re: [OT] Re: SSL configuration using PFX as keystore
Date Wed, 08 Jul 2015 14:22:49 GMT
Christopher Schultz wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> Mark,
> 
> On 7/7/15 9:39 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 30/06/2015 21:16, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> This is probably off-topic now so marking as such.
>>>
>>> On 29/06/2015 14:29, André Warnier wrote:
>>>> Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>>> On 26/06/2015 19:37, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/06/2015 11:56, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22/06/2015 09:39, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>>>> <snip/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Prompting for authentication in response to an untrusted
>>>>>>> certificate is bizarre to say the least.
>> <snip/>
>>
>>> Progress, if you can call it that, has not been good. They have
>>> now asked for additional network traces since:
>>>
>>> <quote> ... to be able to understand what packets are sent by
>>> client and what response did Server generate for the specific
>>> packet, I would like to check a simultaneous trace on both
>>> communication endpoints </quote>
>>>
>>> I have just sent a very long, fairly stropy reply pointing out
>>> the complete pointlessness of this request - not least because
>>> the information they claim they don't have is right in front of
>>> them in the form of the sequence and acknowledgement numbers in
>>> the network trace.
>> This continues to drag on. The stropy e-mail got the issue
>> re-assigned to someone with marginally more clue. They put together
>> a test environment (with IIS instead of Tomcat) and then attempted
>> to demonstrate that the issue did not occur and hence it must be a
>> Tomcat problem.
> 
> "Our non-standard client works perfectly well with our non-standard
> server. The fact that our non-standard client doesn't work with your
> standards-compliant server obviously points to your software as the
> problem."
> 
> Nice tautology you got there. It would be a shame if something were to
> happen to it.
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> Well, if you're willing to continue to tilt at this particular
> windmill, it would be a great service to the world. I'm not hopeful,
> though, as WebDAV support in Microsoft Windows has degraded
> consistently over the past 10 years and never improved. I don't know
> why they even bother to /claim/ support for it anymore. Evidently,
> nobody in the Microsoft world gives a rats posterior about WebDAV...
> they all use SMB anyway.
> 
>> However, once they had configured their environment to match my
>> original bug report (server using cert issued by CA client doesn't
>> trust, server configured not to require authentication) imagine my
>> lack of surprise when the problem was repeated with IIS. Needless
>> to say the other end of the conference call went very, very quiet
>> at that point.
>>
>> The issue has now been passed to yet another support employee (I
>> refuse to call these people engineers) who apparently wants to
>> discuss the issue further. What they can possibly need to discuss
>> at this point I have no idea but having told them (again) how to
>> contact me I am waiting to hear from them.
>>
>> I also discovered that - despite the conference call - the latest 
>> support ticket update from Microsoft claimed the issue could not
>> be repeated with IIS.
>>
>> It appears that the issue has been passed to the IIS team which
>> makes no sense at all since all the evidence points to this being a
>> WebDAV client bug and I have been making that point since this
>> whole sorry episode started.
> 
> The good news is that the IIS team is likely to refuse to accept
> responsibility for the bug (because, by definition, IIS contains zero
> bugs) and likely to pass the buck back to the WebDAV client team. If
> you catch them at just the right time, you may be able to show MS how
> to do their own jobs.
> 
>> While I continue to appreciate the free MSDN license Microsoft
>> kindly provide to Apache committers, I must confess to being
>> completely unimpressed by Microsoft's support structures and count
>> myself fortunate that I don't have to run an IT infrastructure that
>> relies on them.
> 
> +1
> 

With respect, you both don't get it.  MS support is deliberately pitiful, to emphasize the

fact that MS software is by definition bug-free and does not really need support.
And to really bring the point home, MS seems to have plans to not name the next version 
"Windows" anymore, but invent some other name.  Now /that/ should allow them to definitely

start with a clean slate in their support database.
There might be an idea for Tomcat there.. "Bulldog" ?


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org


Mime
View raw message