> On Dec 14, 2021, at 2:22 PM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 6:26 PM Roy T. Fielding <field...@gbiv.com> wrote: >> >> This is a little confusing. It looks from the comment and code like the >> change is restricting the request target that can be sent through a proxy, >> which would be wrong. > > Yeah, the hunk I pointed to in the other message is doing this and I'm > going to fix it.
Thanks. >> OTOH, it would make sense that the proxy itself (the thing to which the >> proxied request is being sent) is limited to http(s) because that is a >> feature >> of HTTP. Is that what was intended? > > And the ap_post_read_request() part of the patch is enforcing that > yes, so keeping it would be fine right? Yep, that should be fine, at least until someone implements proxying via some other protocol. ....Roy
