On 11 Dec 2020, at 14:13, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote:

> Where is this test suite?

To fill you in, the Co-Advisor test suite is a commercial HTTP suite available 
here: http://coad.measurement-factory.com

A number of years ago they donated to our project one year access to their 
suite for free, a service worth many thousands of dollars, and I used their 
test suite within the time limit they gave us to take httpd from many hundreds 
of protocol violations down to zero.

All violations were backported to v2.4 but this one, and as a result Apache is 
not listed here: http://coad.measurement-factory.com/clients.html

> Which RFC violation, a proxy socket connection error should return 504
> Gateway Timeout??

The RFC violation that was flagged by the test suite as described above.

> I see that RFC2616 14.9.4 is about cache, why don't you fix this in mod_cac=
> he?

The fix applied consisted of the required changes to make the Co-Advisor suite 
resolve the violation.

>> Please resolve the discussion above.
> You should do that, it's not my veto. Failing to resolve the
> discussion, the commit should be reverted right?

It should not be reverted, no.

The commit was not vetoed, the backport to 2.4 was, and for a good reason - a 
change to the response code in a point release would have destabilised some 
people. Fixing this issue on trunk for a future release is entirely fine.

The problem you’re really trying to solve is the inconvenience of having trunk 
and v2.4 being different.

The fix to this is to replace HTTP_BAD_GATEWAY with a neural macro like 
trunk, and HTTP_BAD_GATEWAY on v2.4.

Please don’t back out protocol behaviour without checking the origin of the 
change first. All of what I describe above is in our commit history and mailing 


Reply via email to