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

Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> Sat, 28 March 2015 05:05 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 7072D1A1BC2 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 22:05:11 -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 QX-kRypsdyea for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 22:05:08 -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 E073F1A1BB4 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 22:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1YbisJ-0007kp-Pb for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 05:01:35 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 05:01:35 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YbisJ-0007kp-Pb@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1Ybis8-0007jr-MG for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 05:01:24 +0000
Received: from 121-99-228-82.static.orcon.net.nz ([121.99.228.82] helo=treenet.co.nz) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1Ybis7-0003Nm-Gt for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 05:01:24 +0000
Received: from [192.168.20.23] (121-99-227-211.bng1.nct.orcon.net.nz [121.99.227.211]) by treenet.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBA95E6D9F for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 17:00:49 +1200 (NZST)
Message-ID: <55163579.5010100@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 18:00:41 +1300
From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <F30E70B3-14F0-47F7-8228-98527034A5CC@mnot.net> <emfb77a216-c881-4ccc-b0ac-177521265d55@bodybag> <20150327064939.GA25606@1wt.eu> <CABkgnnXWJLqssidLV6mZW_FxrXALhuJ2gUjZeAj0xxtsUoAZPA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnVExSbTx+2zjFkmomOfBouhXRy4pi6wftKVFjKVcJ-DLw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnVExSbTx+2zjFkmomOfBouhXRy4pi6wftKVFjKVcJ-DLw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=121.99.228.82; envelope-from=squid3@treenet.co.nz; helo=treenet.co.nz
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.418, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, TVD_RCVD_IP=0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1Ybis7-0003Nm-Gt 9d4b442b49c7c4b7ecc4061a4095ce51
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/55163579.5010100@treenet.co.nz>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/29045
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>

On 28/03/2015 6:54 a.m., Martin Thomson wrote:
> Oh, and I have to apologize for dropping the ball on this one.  It
> somehow didn't get recorded as an issue.  I have corrected that:
> https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/57
> 
> On 27 March 2015 at 12:53, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> On 27 March 2015 at 01:49, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>>> I'm fine with several proposals, as long as there's the ALPN name in
>>> the header name to indicate that whatever value is advertised must be
>>> a valid, registered ALPN token.
>>
>> Would everyone be OK with the following header field name: "ALPN" ?
> 


Okay by me too.

Though the header is of less interest for Squid in its current form than
I had thought earlier.

Amos