Yes, this is a sticky situation. The presumption here that the client has requested a particular set of security protocols via cgi as opposed to envar; though I think that this was likely a mistake on our part. Nonetheless, we have to provide backward comparability. Promoting the cgi elements in the client seems to solve the backward comparability issue. However, it would be good to understand why we even added the cgi approach in the first place. The history of that decision seems to be lost. I know the history of the envar approach but not the cgi approach. So, can you give me that? Mind you, I am not opposed to your pull request, I just want all of us to understand the history of why the patch is needed.

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub

Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list

To unsubscribe from the XROOTD-DEV list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=XROOTD-DEV&A=1