From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09C7596485 for ; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:27:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D81FF1612F for ; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:26:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:26:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2DCB047FEC for ; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:26:52 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:26:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox Backup Server development discussion References: <20240228162059.426638-1-m.carrara@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Max Carrara In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.253 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment KAM_NUMSUBJECT 0.5 Subject ends in numbers excluding current years SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup] fix #5217: api: send missing header when upgrading to HTTP/2 X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 15:27:24 -0000 On 2/28/24 19:03, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 28/02/2024 um 17:20 schrieb Max Carrara: >> Caddy therefore does not deviate from the HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/2 >> specifications; neither to we. I therefore conclude that it's best to >> just include the header in this specific response anyway, as no harm >> is done by doing so. >> > > can be fine, but is there any discussion about this from Caddy's site? I haven't found anything, no. > > As while we can take this in and PBS should work with Caddy in-between, > other HTTP/2 daemons that follow spec while not having that header > still won't work. > So, if there isn't any issue tracker entry for this at caddy's side it > might be worth opening one even if we apply this here, and if there's > an existing issue then referencing it here would be great. I've opened a more detailed issue over on Caddy's GitHub where I've described pretty much everything I had discovered [0]. Most of the information there regarding the RFC specs and whatnot are already in the commit message of the patch. I'd say we wait a little bit and see what the Caddy folks' opinions are on this before we apply this patch in case some additional things / infos turn up that might be of relevance. In either case I'll send in a v2 with an updated commit message once there's been some progress in that regard. Will reference the issue in the message as well (and might reword some things, now that I've read it again). [0]: https://github.com/caddyserver/caddy/issues/6134