Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of jorton@redhat.com designates
 66.187.233.31 as permitted sender)
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:41:32 +0000
From: Joe Orton <jorton@redhat.com>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: svn commit: r354108 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
Message-ID: <20051205184132.GB16318@redhat.com>
Mail-Followup-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
References: <20051205174546.51698.qmail@minotaur.apache.org>
 <43947FB7.2070601@rowe-clan.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <43947FB7.2070601@rowe-clan.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i

On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 11:58:15AM -0600, William Rowe wrote:
> jorton@apache.org wrote:
> 
> >+    * core: Stop stripping C-L from HEAD responses which prevents use
> >+      of Windows Update through mod_proxy amongst other things.
> >+        http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi?rev=327008&view=rev
> >+      PR: 18757
> >+      +1: jorton
> 
> -1 veto not vote if T-E is present.
> 
> But the obvious tangle becomes - do we return T-E chunked - and is that
> a valid header as a HEAD response with no body?
> 
> If this is a bug in Windows Update, then one can always set http10 rules
> for that url (and even provide it as an example in the default conf ;-)

Can you demonstrate a request/response sequence which is now processed 
incorrectly after applying this change, so I can understand what you're 
talking about?  

(applying http10 makes no difference to the proxy case, the bug is that 
httpd is stripping the C-L response header sent by the origin server)

joe