Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 04:48:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) 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: Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) 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 ) 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" To: "Martin Thomson" Cc: "Willy Tarreau" , "Amos Jeffries" , "HTTP Working Group" Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 11:43:50 +0000 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Reply-To: "Adrien de Croy" 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: Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/29071 X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Post: List-Unsubscribe: sorry I'm still missing something about the possible function of the=20 registry. If you have a foo protocol that is used over TLS or may be used directly= =20 over TCP, then if you see ALPN: foo then how does the registry help you determine if this is foo over TLS or= =20 plaintext foo, since _surely_ you don't put foos in the TLS ALPN, since=20 the "next layer" from TLS is not foos, it is foo. Adrien ------ Original Message ------ From: "Martin Thomson" To: "Adrien de Croy" Cc: "Willy Tarreau" ; "Amos Jeffries" ;=20 "HTTP Working Group" Sent: 30/03/2015 4:54:16 p.m. Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call for=20 draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol >On 29 March 2015 at 20:12, Adrien de Croy wrote: >> >> I think renaming to ALPN addresses a couple of issues, but still not= =20 >>the one >> about whether it's being used for a TLS-wrapped protocol or bare=20 >>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.