On 01/06/2008 07:47 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: > > On 01/06/2008 11:39 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: >> On 01/06/2008 02:20 AM, Nick Kew wrote: >>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:28:33 +0100 >>> Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> On 01/05/2008 07:04 PM, Nick Kew wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 12:38:58 +0100 >>>>> Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Ok. Can you setup a tcpdump between proxy and server and between >>>>>> client and proxy? I guess the network traces would be very helpful >>>>>> in finding out where things are starting to get wrong. >>>>> One testcase with its tcpdump at >>>>> http://people.apache.org/~niq/2.2.7/ >>>> Thanks for this, but I think this is not sufficient: >>>> >>>> 1. It seems the dump is incomplete as I cannot see a 0 chunk at the >>>> end. 2. I would prefer the binary dump as it offers more >>>> possibilities to analyse it with wireshark. >>>> >>>> Sorry for being that demanding :-) >>> Do you mean as in tcpdump -x? I've uploaded a pair of dumps >>> (one of client-proxy, the other of proxy-server) at the same >>> location. >> > > Ok, next one. I missed to set the correct state in some situations. > Can you please give it a try again?
Ok, hopefully final one. Though I still have some optimizations in the pipe they do not relate directly to the bug. Nick could you please test latest trunk (already contains optimizations) and 2.2.x with r609394 and r609538 (minimum stuff to fix all aspects of the bug including chunk extensions) backported which should apply cleanly, again? Thanks. Once the tests are positive I will propose r609394 and r609538 for backport such that T&R of 2.2.x and all other branches can start soon. I will also propose the optimizations. If someone has cycles to review then fine, if not then in 2.2.9 :-). Regards Rüdiger
