On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:48:54AM +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:14:57AM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 12:00:06PM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (07/06/16 15:13), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 03:11:49PM +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 02:42:56PM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 04:32:20PM +0200, Sumit Bose wrote: > > oops, yes I guess this would be a good idea. I'll send a new patch. > > > > new version attached. > > bye, > Sumit
One last question, do we want to add the ocsp_default_responder and ocsp_default_responder_signing_cert options to configAPI?
No, because I think the configAPI is currently not capable of this because both are only allowed options to certificate_verification as e.g. no_ocsp or no_verification.
OK, makes sense.
Thank you, ACK.
master:
- 53ef8f81b60929a6c866efdd133627e7d7d61705
- aa35995ef056aa8ae052a47c62c6750b7adf065e
- 875c90d531e6869a92da4b515db729ffce7c4244
LS
I would like to backport these patches to sssd-1-13, because without them, the patches for upstream #2977 do not apply cleanly and I think it's better to apply more upstream patches than to backport and fork.
fine by me, shall I send patches for sssd-1-13 or will you do the backport of the three patches?
The backport was trivial, I'm just waiting for sssd-1-13 CI results.