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

Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> Fri, 27 March 2015 00:56 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 BC9081A01A9 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:56:27 -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 wjt5T9RD0p3L for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:56:24 -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 812771A010C for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1YbIVz-0002Vy-P9 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 00:52:47 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 00:52:47 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YbIVz-0002Vy-P9@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1YbIVt-0002VD-5M for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 00:52:41 +0000
Received: from 121-99-228-82.static.orcon.net.nz ([121.99.228.82] helo=treenet.co.nz) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1YbIVs-0003cx-7I for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 00:52:41 +0000
Received: from [192.168.20.20] (121-99-227-211.bng1.nct.orcon.net.nz [121.99.227.211]) by treenet.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CDECE6D9F for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 12:52:06 +1200 (NZST)
Message-ID: <5514A9AF.1060105@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 13:51:59 +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: <em8080aed5-6047-40b7-9cca-ac03bcb97ba0@bodybag>
In-Reply-To: <em8080aed5-6047-40b7-9cca-ac03bcb97ba0@bodybag>
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: lisa.w3.org 1YbIVs-0003cx-7I 6a29937810a8c66758727422ed13c7d3
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/5514A9AF.1060105@treenet.co.nz>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/29031
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 27/03/2015 12:36 p.m., Adrien de Croy wrote:
> 
> hi Martin
> 
> I must have misread something then, because it seems to me from the
> draft that the Tunnel-Protocol header is intended to contain what either
> 
> a) could be in a TLS ALPN negotiation if the next layer is TLS (T-P
> identifies the next layer after TLS)
> b) would identify the protocol directly if the next layer is not  TLS
> (T-P identifies the next layer)
> 
> and that it be the same token(s) whether or not the next layer is TLS.  
> E.g. explicity NOT 2 versions of an ALPN token one of which indicates
> the presence of TLS and one not.
> 
> So I can't see how the same ALPN token can distinguish that the next
> layer is TLS or not unless it must always be TLS, in which case you're
> at pains to avoid saying so and my question would then be why?
> 
> My personal opinion is that TLS is as much a protocol as anything else
> and if the next layer in a tunnel is TLS, then it's just an error to not
> say so or to say it's something else.  It just breaks the basic layering
> that the internet is based on.
> 
> This is what Amos was referring to I believe when he suggested
> indicating TLS and then using TLS ALPN for the next layer after that.

Yes.

Amos