In message <CAOXZevAVqm9NSbu7Ttp1Hji_SY8pDyAa=k8072qfuhxyojc...@mail.gmail.com> , Per Buer writes:
>According to http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-6.1.1 - the reason >phrase is meant for human consumption and you're allowed to say whatever >you'd like here. The reason phrase is required by the RFC and the question >is whether Varnish should require it or not. After all, it isn't used for >anything so I don't see a reason why we should require it. Then again, we >cannot be faulted for declaring a backend sick when it is in violation of >the protocol. I have no opinion on this. Find a consensus and send me a patch... -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [email protected] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
