On 18 Sep 2015 05:13, "Jim Rollenhagen" <j...@jimrollenhagen.com> wrote:
> FWIW, in Ironic, we added the public_endpoint config to fix the bug > quickly, but we'd really prefer to support both that and the > secure_proxy_ssl_header option. It would use public_endpoint if it is > set, then fall back to the header config, then fall back to > request_host like it was before. This seems like the most sensible arrangement and the one if be happy meeting for cinder. If the originator would like to file a bug against cinder for the missing proto header support then I don't expect any resistance to it being fixed. Is there anybody with the time to start analysing different project's config files and documenting the likely cross-project ones? I know glance had a bunch of ssl related ones that were richer than most projects, for example.
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
