Sorry to interfere in the debate with a non-RFC argument but there may be
aftermath by changing a long standing mod_proxy 502 error for almost any
non-recoverable problem with the upstream server.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
Arbitrarily changing a 502
-Original Message-
From: Roy T. Fielding
Sent: Donnerstag, 9. Mai 2013 00:36
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: svn commit: r1480058 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES
modules/proxy/mod_proxy_ftp.c modules/proxy/mod_proxy_http.c
modules/proxy/proxy_util.c
On May 8, 2013, at 1
On 09 May 2013, at 12:36 AM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
Unfortunately, I am at the tail end of a long standards meeting and
haven't slept much for three days. Have you checked to see if the
descriptions changed in HTTPbis p6? RFC2616 hasn't been relevant
for a while now.
minf...@apache.org wrote:
Author: minfrin
Date: Tue May 7 20:27:37 2013
New Revision: 1480058
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1480058
Log:
mod_proxy: Ensure network errors detected by the proxy are returned as
504 Gateway Timout as opposed to 502 Bad Gateway, in order to be
compliant with
On 08 May 2013, at 9:47 AM, Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org wrote:
I don't agree with this. The case you mention is only true if the client
sends Cache-Control: must-revalidate.
If this is not the case IMHO 10.5.3 and 10.5.5 apply.
And only a cache is required to respond with 504 in this
Graham Leggett wrote:
On 08 May 2013, at 9:47 AM, Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org wrote:
I don't agree with this. The case you mention is only true if the client
sends Cache-Control: must-revalidate.
If this is not the case IMHO 10.5.3 and 10.5.5 apply.
And only a cache is required to
On May 8, 2013, at 1:11 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Graham Leggett wrote:
On 08 May 2013, at 9:47 AM, Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org wrote:
I don't agree with this. The case you mention is only true if the client
sends Cache-Control: must-revalidate.
If this is not the case IMHO 10.5.3 and
