Re: An ask for eyes on proposal

2017-06-09 Thread Sander Hoentjen
On 06/09/2017 03:29 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:17 AM, Sander Hoentjen wrote: >> On 06/08/2017 07:30 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: >>> Hi, all; >>> With the proposal to T set for Monday, I wanted to draw attention to >>> the PROXY protocol proposal in

Re: An ask for eyes on proposal

2017-06-09 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 8:29 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > To your example, the *global* config line; > > RemoteIPProxyProtocol 127.0.0.1 [or 127.0.0.0/24] > > would configure all locally routed *client* requests, irrespective of > which by-IP vhost, to require the PROXY

Re: An ask for eyes on proposal

2017-06-09 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:17 AM, Sander Hoentjen wrote: > On 06/08/2017 07:30 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: >> Hi, all; >> With the proposal to T set for Monday, I wanted to draw attention to >> the PROXY protocol proposal in STATUS. Just hoping for a quick review. >> I know it

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

2017-06-09 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Perfect... I propose a T on Monday... comments? +1. Many will have noticed already, but apr 1.6.2 and apr-util-1.6.0 vote threads were just spawned to be tallied 13:00 UTC Monday.

Re: An ask for eyes on proposal

2017-06-09 Thread Sander Hoentjen
On 06/08/2017 07:30 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: > Hi, all; > With the proposal to T set for Monday, I wanted to draw attention to > the PROXY protocol proposal in STATUS. Just hoping for a quick review. > I know it appears to be a large change, but as I worked through the > feedback, ten of the