Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Varnish: Dev

Make reason-phrase optional?

 

 

Varnish dev RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


perbu at varnish-software

May 15, 2013, 3:34 AM

Post #1 of 5 (142 views)
Permalink
Make reason-phrase optional?

In the web-forum I noticed someone ran into some trouble with the probes
declaring the backend sick if the backend dropped the reason-phrase (The
"OK" in "HTTP/1.1 200 OK").

According to http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-6.1.1 - the reason
phrase is meant for human consumption and you're allowed to say whatever
you'd like here. The reason phrase is required by the RFC and the question
is whether Varnish should require it or not. After all, it isn't used for
anything so I don't see a reason why we should require it. Then again, we
cannot be faulted for declaring a backend sick when it is in violation of
the protocol.


--
<http://www.varnish-software.com/> *Per Buer*
Varnish Software AS
Phone: +47 958 39 117 | Skype: per.buer
We Make Websites Fly!
Attachments: make-reason-optional-for-probe.patch (0.45 KB)


magnus at hagander

May 15, 2013, 3:40 AM

Post #2 of 5 (135 views)
Permalink
Re: Make reason-phrase optional? [In reply to]

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Per Buer <perbu [at] varnish-software>wrote:

> In the web-forum I noticed someone ran into some trouble with the probes
> declaring the backend sick if the backend dropped the reason-phrase (The
> "OK" in "HTTP/1.1 200 OK").
>
> According to http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-6.1.1 - the
> reason phrase is meant for human consumption and you're allowed to say
> whatever you'd like here. The reason phrase is required by the RFC and the
> question is whether Varnish should require it or not. After all, it isn't
> used for anything so I don't see a reason why we should require it. Then
> again, we cannot be faulted for declaring a backend sick when it is in
> violation of the protocol.
>
>
Postels law dictates it should be treated as optional, I guess :) And if
Varnish doesn't make use of it anywhere, there's no point in rejecting it
being missing.

But it looks really weird to me to first test for ==2 and then for ==1.
Just seems less natural than to first test for ==1 and then ==2 :)
</nitpick>

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/


phk at phk

May 15, 2013, 3:44 AM

Post #3 of 5 (135 views)
Permalink
Re: Make reason-phrase optional? [In reply to]

In message <CAOXZevAVqm9NSbu7Ttp1Hji_SY8pDyAa=K8072qfuHXyojc1AQ [at] mail>
, Per Buer writes:

>According to http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-6.1.1 - the reason
>phrase is meant for human consumption and you're allowed to say whatever
>you'd like here. The reason phrase is required by the RFC and the question
>is whether Varnish should require it or not. After all, it isn't used for
>anything so I don't see a reason why we should require it. Then again, we
>cannot be faulted for declaring a backend sick when it is in violation of
>the protocol.

I have no opinion on this. Find a consensus and send me a patch...


--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk [at] FreeBSD | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

_______________________________________________
varnish-dev mailing list
varnish-dev [at] varnish-cache
https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev


perbu at varnish-software

May 15, 2013, 4:05 AM

Post #4 of 5 (135 views)
Permalink
Re: Make reason-phrase optional? [In reply to]

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus [at] hagander>wrote:

>
> But it looks really weird to me to first test for ==2 and then for ==1.
> Just seems less natural than to first test for ==1 and then ==2 :)
> </nitpick>
>

"less" threw me into the gawd awful "GNU nano". I blame it. But, yeah,
noted.


--
<http://www.varnish-software.com/> *Per Buer*
Varnish Software
Phone: +47 958 39 117 | Skype: per.buer
We Make Websites Fly!


apj at mutt

May 15, 2013, 4:11 AM

Post #5 of 5 (140 views)
Permalink
Re: Make reason-phrase optional? [In reply to]

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 12:34:51PM +0200, Per Buer wrote:
>
> According to http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-6.1.1 - the reason
> phrase is meant for human consumption and you're allowed to say whatever
> you'd like here. The reason phrase is required by the RFC and the question
> is whether Varnish should require it or not. After all, it isn't used for
> anything so I don't see a reason why we should require it. Then again, we
> cannot be faulted for declaring a backend sick when it is in violation of
> the protocol.

I think it's ok to ignore it. Because Postel.

--
Andreas

_______________________________________________
varnish-dev mailing list
varnish-dev [at] varnish-cache
https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev

Varnish dev RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.