Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol

"Adrien de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com> Mon, 30 March 2015 11:48 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B5811ACE42 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 04:48:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8lL0BND5-FVa for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 04:48:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B80B1ACDD7 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 04:48:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1YcY8K-00013Y-Dx for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 11:45:32 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 11:45:32 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YcY8K-00013Y-Dx@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <adrien@qbik.com>) id 1YcY8E-00012r-CW for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 11:45:26 +0000
Received: from smtp.qbik.com ([122.56.26.1]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <adrien@qbik.com>) id 1YcY8C-0005Xj-II for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 11:45:26 +0000
Received: From [192.168.1.146] (unverified [192.168.1.146]) by SMTP Server [192.168.1.3] (WinGate SMTP Receiver v8.3.2 (Build 4772)) with SMTP id <0000306644@smtp.qbik.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 00:43:50 +1300
From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 11:43:50 +0000
Message-Id: <eme34273c1-844f-4500-bda5-4f5c5e814002@bodybag>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnUH+PatWrHVmFKp5Og8aNKrFByLTdy+GO28qUm+ciT1-g@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
User-Agent: eM_Client/6.0.21372.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=122.56.26.1; envelope-from=adrien@qbik.com; helo=smtp.qbik.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.241, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1YcY8C-0005Xj-II 805aa6ae6d0fb80d8706ba7209bc8650
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/eme34273c1-844f-4500-bda5-4f5c5e814002@bodybag>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/29071
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

sorry I'm still missing something about the possible function of the 
registry.

If you have a foo protocol that is used over TLS or may be used directly 
over TCP, then if you see

ALPN: foo

then how does the registry help you determine if this is foo over TLS or 
plaintext foo, since _surely_ you don't put foos in the TLS ALPN, since 
the "next layer" from TLS is not foos, it is foo.

Adrien


------ Original Message ------
From: "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: "Adrien de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
Cc: "Willy Tarreau" <w@1wt.eu>; "Amos Jeffries" <squid3@treenet.co.nz>; 
"HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 30/03/2015 4:54:16 p.m.
Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call for 
draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol

>On 29 March 2015 at 20:12, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote:
>>
>>  I think renaming to ALPN addresses a couple of issues, but still not 
>>the one
>>  about whether it's being used for a TLS-wrapped protocol or bare 
>>protocol.
>
>Correct. The registry will have to serve there. The presence or
>absence of TLS is arguably of little value in cases where the protocol
>is unknown anyway: unless you have some sort of magic I don't know of.