On 22/09/2015 3:50 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: > On 09/21/2015 08:46 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote: >> On 24/08/2015 8:40 a.m., Amos Jeffries wrote: >>> It turns out that ICAP implements has three distinct protocol parsers. >>> >>> I begin the ICAP parser conversion to the Parser-NG model with >>> ModXact::parseHeaders() - which was conflating both ICAP and HTTP, and >>> the HTTP directional parsers. >>> >>> >>> * splits the exiting parse method into 3 distinct stages; ICAP-reply, >>> HTTP-request, HTTP-reply. Each stage is sequential and controlled by the >>> Encapsulated header contents. >>> >>> I'm not sure yet if we need to be tolerant of out-of-order segments in >>> the payload. The spec is pretty clear that order is explicit and >>> specific. But the old parser actually ignored the Encapsulated header >>> byte offsets (!!). >> >> FTR: that is <http://bugs.squid-cache.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2480> > > > We should continue to ignore offsets [by default] IMO. Not doing so is > likely to result in many needless interoperability problems. There are > many poorly written ICAP services out there. > > Skipping bogus parts (bug 2480) is fine as a minor interoperability > improvement if it is easy to do so. We do not need to parse offsets to > skip a part. > > I would not add support for out-of-order parts unless it does not > complicate the code at all and is explicitly requested.
Okay. Then the patch should be suitable for commit as-is AFAIK. I await your audit, and/or any testing that can be thrown at it from Factory's end :-) Amos _______________________________________________ squid-dev mailing list squid-dev@lists.squid-cache.org http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-dev
