Clarifications on expected behavior when using proxy-inner-tunnel (3.x)

[Brian Julin]

Alan DeKok wrote:

>  Yes.  That's because it was just simpler to set it up that way.

>  Patches are welcome. :)

> We're working on simplifying and re-designing the server core for 3.1 / 3.2. 
> That will make all of this work by design.  The current system was cobbled
> together over time, and is less than perfect.

Thanks, Alan, that makes things much clearer.

That being the case, I don't see a way other than the (deprecated)
use_tunneled_reply to pop state out of the inner tunnel (barring some
other clever trick?), so I hope I'm OK in assuming use_tunneled_reply
will be sticking around until after that refactor "hits shelves"?