Re: HTTP/1.1

From: Amos Jeffries <>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:49:10 +1300

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:, 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

>> 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


Please be using
   Current Stable Squid 2.7.STABLE6 or 3.0.STABLE13
   Current Beta Squid
Received on Thu Feb 19 2009 - 10:48:57 MST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Feb 19 2009 - 12:00:03 MST