On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 18:47:48 +0100, Jan Kratochvil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 14:05:30 +0100, Jeff Trawick wrote: > > On 29 Dec 2004 20:39:47 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... > > Any agreement to use the non-DOS-able and protocol-compliant > > implementation by default, and allow the C-L method to be enabled by a > > special setting? > > Is it going to be backported to 2.0 or it waits for 2.2? It is very likely that whatever ends up in 2.2, possibly different than in current snapshots, will be backported. The only reason it hasn't been backported yet is that there are some concerns with what is in the current snapshots. And such concerns surely apply to 2.2 as well, so something has to be done ;) An interesting issue is that what is in 2.0 now is optimal when it works, and it works in a common real-world scenario (client sends C-L and no filters modify the request body size). At present, we don't have any proposed solution which would preserve this common, optimal situation. That will be a painful regression for some, since the request body will be buffered in memory in order to re-calculate the C-L. --/-- Oddity in the current 2.1 snapshot solution: If you set the proxy-sendchunked variable, then the origin server will always get a request body, even if the client didn't send one. A simple GET from the client turns into this: G E T / s i l l y / / s e n d c h u n k s / ? r e a d _ b o d y H T T P / 1 . 1\r\n H o s t : 1 2 7 . 0 . 0 . 1 : 8 0 8 1 \r\n M a x - F o r w a r d s : 1 0\r\n C o n n e c t i o n : c l o s e\r\n X - F o r w a r d e d - F o r : 1 2 7 . 0 . 0 . 1\r\n X - F o r w a r d e d - H o s t : 1 2 7 . 0 . 0 . 1\r\n X - F o r w a r d e d - S e r v e r : 1 9 2 . 1 6 8 . 1 . 1 1 \r\n T r a n s f e r - E n c o d i n g : c h u n k e d\r\n\r\n 0\r\n\r\n
