On 12/31/2014 10:39 AM, Marcus Kool wrote: > On 12/31/2014 02:23 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote: >> 2. Writing adaptation hooks to pass tunnel information (using TUNMOD >> design above) to adaptation services. The primary difficulty here is >> handling incremental "give me more" and "give them more" decisions while >> shoveling tunneled bytes. The current tunneling code does not do any >> adaptation at all so the developers would be starting from scratch >> (albeit with good examples available from non-tunneling code dealing >> with HTTP/FTP requests and HTTP/FTP responses).
> It can be simpler. TUNMOD replies can be limited to > DONTKNOW - continue with what is happening and keep the TUNMOD server > informed > ACCEPT - continue and do not inform the TUNMOD server any more about > this tunnel > BLOCK - close the tunnel Yes, of course, but supporting just the bare minimum above and supporting it well is 80-90% of the total effort IMO. > I think there is no need for adaptation since one accepts a webdisk, voice > chat, VPN or whatever, or one does not accept it. So adaptation as is > used for HTTP, is not an important feature. In Squid terminology, "adaptation" includes passive, read-only inspection. However, I am sure some folks would want to send error messages in unsupported-by-Squid protocols as well. That would require injecting content received from a TUNMOD service, just like the current REQMOD and RESPMOD services inject HTTP and FTP error messages. Happy New Year, Alex. _______________________________________________ squid-dev mailing list squid-dev@lists.squid-cache.org http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-dev