Alex Rousskov wrote:
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
Thanks Alex. That looks very helpful.
Amos
--
Please be using
Current Stable Squid 2.7.STABLE6 or 3.0.STABLE13
Current Beta Squid 3.1.0.5
