On 12/15/20 1:23 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> 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 lists.

Given the latest feedback from Roy and 
https://github.com/httpwg/http-core/issues/608 I think the way forward for this 
case here
is to leave it backed out as done in r1884280. Once 
https://github.com/httpwg/http-core/issues/608 is applied (I assume it gets
applied) Co-Advisor would need to adopt and we are fine.



Reply via email to