On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 7:40 AM Ivan Zhakov <i...@visualsvn.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 at 12:25, Christophe JAILLET > <christophe.jail...@wanadoo.fr> wrote: >> >> Hi, all; >> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures: >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/ >> >> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this >> candidate tarball as 2.4.47: >> [ ] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough! >> [ ] +0: Let's have a talk. >> [X] -1: There's trouble in paradise. Here's what's wrong. >> >> The computed digests of the tarball up for vote are: >> sha1: f4281be0bf08489a51d818b596a92bfcfbb2c708 *httpd-2.4.47.tar.gz >> sha256: 567d5ac72ea643e3828e8e54f32e06f1fad10095d33ae4071eeaec3c78b70a34 >> *httpd-2.4.47.tar.gz >> sha512: >> de4c80e1ddebe3286c234179fd01d4917f479f75a7fe958032c19a8f22546e95f31e3b50073844d09f20f54894e7d511bcd9fd2f1cd2b2c71b3a182d6e62bab3 >> *httpd-2.4.47.tar.gz >> >> The SVN tag is '2.4.47' at r1889091. >> > > [ Sorry for the late response. I've been offline. ] > > I have noticed regression in ETag response header handling in httpd 2.4.47: > ETag response header is not set for HTTP 304 responses. While RFC 7232, 4.1 > requires them for 304 responses [1] > [[[ > The server generating a 304 response MUST generate any of the > following header fields that would have been sent in a 200 (OK) > response to the same request: Cache-Control, Content-Location, > Date, ETag, Expires, and Vary. > ]]] > > httpd 2.4.46 and before sets ETag header for HTTP 304 responses. > > Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to investigate this issue further, > but I think it's a critical regression for the patch release. > > [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7232#section-4.1 >
Thanks for catching, I have revived the BZ thread here: https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61820 In the issue we were working from a draft of the caching RFC, maybe part of how we got mixed up.
