{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/heroku/ranch_proxy_protocol/issues/14","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/heroku/ranch_proxy_protocol/issues/14/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/heroku/ranch_proxy_protocol/issues/14/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/heroku/ranch_proxy_protocol/issues/14/events","html_url":"https://github.com/heroku/ranch_proxy_protocol/pull/14","id":81596550,"number":14,"title":"Add proper support for match_port/1 to ssl proxy","user":{"login":"ferd","id":111141,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/111141?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/ferd","html_url":"https://github.com/ferd","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ferd/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ferd/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ferd/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ferd/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ferd/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ferd/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ferd/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ferd/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ferd/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"closed","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":3,"created_at":"2015-05-27T19:48:29Z","updated_at":"2015-05-27T20:35:01Z","closed_at":"2015-05-27T20:34:57Z","pull_request":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/heroku/ranch_proxy_protocol/pulls/14","html_url":"https://github.com/heroku/ranch_proxy_protocol/pull/14","diff_url":"https://github.com/heroku/ranch_proxy_protocol/pull/14.diff","patch_url":"https://github.com/heroku/ranch_proxy_protocol/pull/14.patch"},"body":"- Relax the constraints on the underlying match_port implementation; it\r\n  was valid for a TCP-only mechanism for the underlying socket, but when\r\n  it's SSL, it has to return what makes sense to return.\r\n- Extend ranch_proxy_ssl to use it.\r\n\r\nArguably we should eventually just switch to 'bearer_port' for these, I\r\nguess. Would it make more sense to go that way, @omarkj ? That would however prompt for backwards incompatibilities."},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/heroku/ranch_proxy_protocol/issues/comments/106065868","html_url":"https://github.com/heroku/ranch_proxy_protocol/pull/14#issuecomment-106065868","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/heroku/ranch_proxy_protocol/issues/14","id":106065868,"user":{"login":"omarkj","id":107387,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/107387?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/omarkj","html_url":"https://github.com/omarkj","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/omarkj/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/omarkj/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/omarkj/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/omarkj/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/omarkj/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/omarkj/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/omarkj/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/omarkj/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/omarkj/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2015-05-27T20:35:01Z","updated_at":"2015-05-27T20:35:01Z","body":"thanks."}}