On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 09:40:01PM +0100, Tim Düsterhus wrote: > As a side question: Why do I have to do unique-id-header, instead of > http-request set-header for the unique request ID? And why can't I > capture it with capture (request|response) header but instead have to > plug into manually into the log format? This feels inconsistent.
Simply because unique-id was created many years before the extensible log-format ou know today existed, and that apparently nobody felt the need to port it. It may be as simple as creating a few sample fetches, I don't know. > I don't really like the duplication of configuration, though. This would > be introducing a special case where really no special case should be > needed and would require me to update headers in two places. But I'm > also not deep enough in haproxy's internals to know how hard it would be > treating the `redirect` like a regular backend response and applying the > regular http-response logic there. I really think it's where we need to invest more thoughts. At least you provided two use cases and that shows that a single header directive might not be enough, and that HSTS definitely isn't a special case at all. Cheers, Willy
