Re: HTTP/1.1

Alex Rousskov wrote:
> On 02/19/2009 03:49 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>> Alex Rousskov wrote:
>>> On 02/18/2009 03:28 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>>>> I've been giving this a good look over recently. We appear to now
>>>> have clients wanting to migrate from 2.7 to 3.1 and naturally need the
>>>> same HTTP/1.1 support as in 2.7.
>>>>
>>>> One of the things I've tried to do was update Roberts old HTTP/1.1
>>>> checklist to wiki (DONE: wiki.squid-cache.org/Http11Checklist), and
>>>> tick off more of the entries with current info from the testing Yahoo!
>>>> did for us.
>>>>
>>>> That second, seems to largely be a washout though, as the requirements
>>>> testing report shows each detailed pass/fail nicely, but does not
>>>> reference them cleanly to the RFC section to tick off the checklist :(
>>> FWIW, each test case links to the RFC 2616 paragraph(s) it checks (among
>>> other things). It is possible that the report you were looking at lost
>>> that information during transmission and summation. In any case, it
>>> would require a non-trivial effort to reconcile the information from the
>>> generated report and Robert's checklist.
>> Aye thats exactly what I found, and yes the copy I /we got was pruned
>> down a lot. I'm not too worried about the non-trivial mapping, as long
>> as the section links are available to verify the mapping attempted was
>> correct.
> You can find all the test cases, cross-referenced with RFC 2616 at
> http://coad.measurement-factory.com/cgi-bin/coad/GraseIndexCgi
>
> HTH,
>
> Alex.
>
>>>> Is anyone available to:
>>>> (a) go over the current checklist and assist with ticking entries off.
>>>> (b) test 3.1 for its current status, and see what needs doing to make
>>>> it at least on par with the server-side support in 2.7
>>>> (c) test 3.1 for noticeable issues when 1.1 is turned on.
>>>>
>>>> Amos
>> Amos
>

Thanks Alex. That looks very helpful.

Amos

-- 
Please be using
   Current Stable Squid 2.7.STABLE6 or 3.0.STABLE13
   Current Beta Squid 3.1.0.5