Re: [MERGE] c++-refactor HttpHdrCc

From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov_at_measurement-factory.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 08:49:45 -0600

On 10/04/2011 10:22 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:

>>> A0. Treat it as max-stale=0.
>>> A1. Treat it as valueless max-stale.
>>> A2. Ignore it completely.

>>> B1. Forward our own valid directive.
>>> B2. Forward nothing.
>>> B3. Forward the malformed directive.

>> Glad we reached consensus and even improved the implementation plan
>> after all. A0 it is!
>>
>> Are you OK with B2? Do you think B3 is worth implementing?
>
> I'm okay with either. Overall I think B3 is better on the outgoing just
> in case it was an extension or big integer. But not strongly enough to
> want it right now.

> B3 will probably be needed when we re-enable "transparent" traffic flag
> as meaning fully transparent/invisible proxy (3.4?). Until then there is
> no real need.

Hi Kinkie,

    It looks like the ball is on your side again. If you want to
continue working on this, you can do either A0+B2 or A0+B3, whichever
you prefer.

Thank you,

Alex.
Received on Wed Oct 05 2011 - 14:49:58 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Oct 05 2011 - 12:00:03 MDT