You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2012/03/02 19:28:20 UTC
[RE-VOTE #2] adoption of mod_policy subproject
A proposal to adopt mod_policy is attached.
[ ] Option 1: adopt as trunk module
[ ] Option 2: adopt only as subproject
[ ] Option 3: do not adopt
[Prior to this vote, option 2 had previously passed with minfrin, jim
and wrowe in support. Subsequently minfrin, jim introduced option 1.
Please vote.]
On 12/13/2011 10:22 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As with mod_firehose, I have concluded negotiation with the BBC to open source some httpd modules that I wrote under the AL, and the BBC have very kindly agreed to donate the code to the ASF[1], which I believe would fit well as a subproject of httpd, and would like to know whether httpd would accept these.
>
> To be clear, this isn't a "code dump", my intention is to continue to develop and support this moving forward, and hopefully expand the community around them.
>
> - mod_policy: "HTTP protocol police"
>
> One of the curses of developing restful services is that clients are "liberal in what they accept". This leads many developers of restful services to be "liberal in what they send", resulting in a service that works for the developer, but fails under load or other real world conditions.
>
> mod_policy is a set of httpd filters that detect and implement a set of HTTP protocol checks, the idea being you declare a policy for your development and testing environments, and requests/responses that violate the policy will either log a warning to the error_log or explicitly fail with a suitable error message, clearly telling the developer what they have done wrong, with the expectation that the developer fixes this before the code sees production.
>
> The set of policies to apply is as follows, but is expected to change with time:
>
> o Content-Type: check that it's present and valid
> o Content-Length: check that it is present and valid (used to ensure that keepalive requests between httpd and load balancers aren't prematurely terminated by a Connection: close)
> o Keepalive: more detailed keepalive checks
> o Vary: headers like User-Agent represent a potential caching DoS, if specified header is present in Vary, fail
> o Validation: if ETag/Last-Modified not present, fail
> o Conditional: if a conditional request doesn't comes back with a properly compliant conditional response, fail
> o No-cache: if the response is declared no cache, fail
> o Max-age: if the response has a max-age less than a given threshold, fail
> o Version: if the request was less than a given version (< HTTP1/1, for example) fail
>
> These are an initial set of policies that were created to meet current needs at the time of development, however it is expected this list will grow with time. mod_policy would benefit greatly from the experience of the authorities on HTTP that exist here, with the above policies being tightened up and improved.
>
> With the proliferation of restful services out there in various states of dubious protocol compliance, this set of filters can be a huge help to stop developers doing non compliant things, while not getting in the way of production code. The filters also help enforce that content remains cacheable, which for sites that endure high loads or thundering herds is important.
>
> The code is currently packaged as an RPM, wrapped in autotools, and a snapshot is available here:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~minfrin/bbc-donated/mod_policy/
>
> The corresponding README documenting in more detail is here:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~minfrin/bbc-donated/mod_policy/README
>
> The code itself is here:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~minfrin/bbc-donated/mod_policy/mod_policy.c
>
> Obviously the expectation is for the documentation to be completed and fleshed out.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52322
>
> Regards,
> Graham
> --
>
>
Re: [RE-VOTE #2] adoption of mod_policy subproject
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On Mar 2, 2012, at 2:27 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 3/2/2012 12:28 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> A proposal to adopt mod_policy is attached.
>>
>> [X] Option 1: adopt as trunk module
>
> Provided that mod_policy is droped into modules/testing
> .../debugging or .../experimental
Ditto. Option 1, in experimental.
--
Rich Bowen
rbowen@rcbowen.com :: @rbowen
rbowen@apache.org
Re: [RE-VOTE #2] adoption of mod_policy subproject
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 3/2/2012 12:28 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> A proposal to adopt mod_policy is attached.
>
> [X] Option 1: adopt as trunk module
Provided that mod_policy is droped into modules/testing
.../debugging or .../experimental
Re: [RE-VOTE #2] adoption of mod_policy subproject
Posted by Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net>.
On 3/2/2012 12:28 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> A proposal to adopt mod_policy is attached.
>
> [ ] Option 1: adopt as trunk module
> [ ] Option 2: adopt only as subproject
> [ ] Option 3: do not adopt
+1 to adopt as experimental module in trunk. This module has several uses beyond its original intent.
--
Daniel Ruggeri
Re: [RE-VOTE #2] adoption of mod_policy subproject
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 14:42, Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de> wrote:
> On Friday 02 March 2012, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> A proposal to adopt mod_policy is attached.
>>
>> [ ] Option 1: adopt as trunk module
>
> +1 to option 1
+1 to option 1.
Re: [RE-VOTE #2] adoption of mod_policy subproject
Posted by Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de>.
On Friday 02 March 2012, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> A proposal to adopt mod_policy is attached.
>
> [ ] Option 1: adopt as trunk module
+1 to option 1
Re: [RE-VOTE #2] adoption of mod_policy subproject
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Mar 2, 2012, at 1:28 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> A proposal to adopt mod_policy is attached.
>
> [X] Option 1: adopt as trunk module
> [ ] Option 2: adopt only as subproject
> [ ] Option 3: do not adopt
>
Re: [RE-VOTE #2] adoption of mod_policy subproject
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 3/2/2012 12:28 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> A proposal to adopt mod_policy is attached.
>
> [ ] Option 1: adopt as trunk module
> [ ] Option 2: adopt only as subproject
> [ ] Option 3: do not adopt
72 hours have passed, consensus indicates that this module is accepted into
the httpd trunk modules/experimental/ tree. Thanks to all who voted.
Of mod_firehose and mod_policy, Legal VP Sam Ruby has asked for clarification
on this ticket https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52322#c9
that all legal requirements are met. Any requirements from Sam must be met
before mod_policy can be committed (and for mod_firehose commits to remain
in subversion).
Graham, please respond to Sam's concerns, thanks.
Re: [RE-VOTE #2] adoption of mod_policy subproject
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
On 02.03.2012 19:28, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> A proposal to adopt mod_policy is attached.
>
> [X] Option 1: adopt as trunk module
> [ ] Option 2: adopt only as subproject
> [ ] Option 3: do not adopt
+1 for Option 1.
Regards,
Rainer