Hi James,

On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 12:44:24PM -0800, James Brown wrote:
> So how should we move this proposal forward? I'm glad to contribute more
> patches...

Sorry for the very late response, we needed to discuss this with
Christopher then both got busy and then forgot :-/

So after discussion, we both agreed that it makes sense to implement it
following the same model as the ACLs described below :

> > A variant of this could be to use the same syntax as the options we already
> > use on ACL matches, which are "-m reg", "-m beg", "-m end". But these will
> > also need to be placed after to avoid the same ambiguity (since "-m" is a
> > token hence a valid header name). That would give for example :
> >
> >      http-request del-header server
> >      http-request del-header x-private-  -m beg
> >      http-request del-header x-.*company -m reg
> >      http-request del-header -tracea     -m end

However, do not feel pressured to implement all matching methods! The
currently known ones are described in section 7.1 of the doc, I think
that "str", "reg", "sub", "beg" and "end" are the only ones which would
make sense over the long term. In practice we could have "str" being
the current one and "beg" being the one with the prefix as you need.
If later others need more modes we can implement them (unless you want
to provide them all at once of course).

Thanks for whatever you can do in this area and sorry again for
responding late!

Willy

Reply via email to