On 02/19/2009 03:49 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > Alex Rousskov wrote: >> On 02/18/2009 03:28 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote: >>> I've been giving this a good look over recently. We appear to now >>> have clients wanting to migrate from 2.7 to 3.1 and naturally need the >>> same HTTP/1.1 support as in 2.7. >>> >>> One of the things I've tried to do was update Roberts old HTTP/1.1 >>> checklist to wiki (DONE: wiki.squid-cache.org/Http11Checklist), and >>> tick off more of the entries with current info from the testing Yahoo! >>> did for us. >>> >>> That second, seems to largely be a washout though, as the requirements >>> testing report shows each detailed pass/fail nicely, but does not >>> reference them cleanly to the RFC section to tick off the checklist :( >> FWIW, each test case links to the RFC 2616 paragraph(s) it checks (among >> other things). It is possible that the report you were looking at lost >> that information during transmission and summation. In any case, it >> would require a non-trivial effort to reconcile the information from the >> generated report and Robert's checklist. > > Aye thats exactly what I found, and yes the copy I /we got was pruned > down a lot. I'm not too worried about the non-trivial mapping, as long > as the section links are available to verify the mapping attempted was > correct. You can find all the test cases, cross-referenced with RFC 2616 at http://coad.measurement-factory.com/cgi-bin/coad/GraseIndexCgi
HTH, Alex. >>> Is anyone available to: >>> (a) go over the current checklist and assist with ticking entries off. >>> (b) test 3.1 for its current status, and see what needs doing to make >>> it at least on par with the server-side support in 2.7 >>> (c) test 3.1 for noticeable issues when 1.1 is turned on. >>> >>> Amos >> > > Amos
