Merge r1761215 from trunk:

feedback in   http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/mod/mod_ssl.html#comment_5818

This added paragraph about optional and optional_no_ca isn't helpful.

At the TLS layer, the challenge for otpional and required are no different.

Move the caution about _no_ca up into where the option is defined
and reword.

git-svn-id: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x@1761217 13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68

diff --git a/docs/manual/mod/mod_ssl.xml b/docs/manual/mod/mod_ssl.xml
index 6495ea0d444af812b70175ccdb614e03100c3ed6..596876c0056d650e52e53d6179c286c1df2630dd 100644 (file)
--- a/docs/manual/mod/mod_ssl.xml
+++ b/docs/manual/mod/mod_ssl.xml
@@ -1292,13 +1292,9 @@ The following levels are available for <em>level</em>:</p>
      the client <em>has to</em> present a valid Certificate</li>
 <li><strong>optional_no_ca</strong>:
      the client may present a valid Certificate<br />
-     but it need not to be (successfully) verifiable.</li>
+     but it need not to be (successfully) verifiable. This option
+     cannot be relied upon for client authentication.  </li>
 </ul>
-<p>In practice only levels <strong>none</strong> and
-<strong>require</strong> are really interesting, because level
-<strong>optional</strong> doesn't work with all browsers and level
-<strong>optional_no_ca</strong> is actually against the idea of
-authentication (but can be used to establish SSL test pages, etc.)</p>
 <example><title>Example</title>
 <highlight language="config">
 SSLVerifyClient require