HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension?
Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com> Mon, 22 July 2013 12:07 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@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 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id 4B0EB21E8083 for
<ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Mon, 22 Jul 2013 05:07:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qSYMhyoT1ETN for
<ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Mon, 22 Jul 2013 05:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com
(Postfix) with ESMTP id 30B2E21E8050 for
<httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>;
Mon, 22 Jul 2013 05:07:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from
<ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V1Esx-0003By-01 for
ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:06:39 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:06:39 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V1Esx-0003By-01@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim
4.72) (envelope-from <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>) id 1V1Esn-0003B5-Qt for
ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:06:29 +0000
Received: from mail-oa0-f49.google.com ([209.85.219.49]) by lisa.w3.org with
esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from
<zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>) id 1V1Esn-0002o2-0k for ietf-http-wg@w3.org;
Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:06:29 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id n12so4188461oag.36 for
<ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 05:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
bh=tsKbkKEoqpG75pmFnFkdWrokJ3NVy323aFgQd9axMmA=;
b=zZBJvKZx8reB/wgjEKcPOy55cWzqF4ho4dLgIe4PgIJuhyKM3Q2L9/bb/TUsLwrwxm
ZGb9gJ5dX1v0Q6vO+K8nE6A+18/sltubhBRQFhCa4dLNnmGzp7M0TuvrCv7F+eK05LVL
//zghTVjCF/J5r+GCsl2OEHc+8B1qrpon+pbl1mM1ACvZlj/fxJ2rwBfs/IyMA6NOyQQ
JzZ7ceQA88JaZMZo41NsULf/JkFVbatrfI/7FzGkDmcPhpJfPympPj8Xp8ph2tYz53v6
xINMo3HRGcjvPMHIRtzbSeUtw7VTPSQkRBcmb60tceIzC5a2J8M7ZcJ3okDV2+hzOnAU Wpjw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.124.228 with SMTP id ml4mr26011526oeb.47.1374494763052;
Mon, 22 Jul 2013 05:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.180.106 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 05:06:02 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:06:02 -0500
Message-ID: <CACuKZqEBAqXs-cQF1U-g3npaXGR0LEoXZYxDv-3a+ftn-YG=_g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.219.49; envelope-from=zhong.j.yu@gmail.com;
helo=mail-oa0-f49.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.715, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1,
DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1V1Esn-0002o2-0k 57edd2d109ff3e6ceea6ae5c0bdb70da
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CACuKZqEBAqXs-cQF1U-g3npaXGR0LEoXZYxDv-3a+ftn-YG=_g@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18862
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>
The draft mandates TLS extension ALPN for any https 2.0 connections, but why is that necessary? Why can't we also establish an https 2.0 connection through the Upgrade mechanism, without ALPN? TLS extension may not be available/convenient on some platforms for some time; requiring it may discourage some potential implementers. Zhong Yu
- HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension? Zhong Yu
- Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension? Mike Belshe
- Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension? Zhong Yu
- Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension? Ilari Liusvaara
- Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension? Yoav Nir
- Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension? Amos Jeffries
- Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension? David Morris
- Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension? William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension? Yoav Nir
- Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension? Martin Thomson
- Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension? Zhong Yu
- Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension? Zhong Yu
- Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension? William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension? Ryan Hamilton
- Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension? Martin Thomson
- Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension? Amos Jeffries
- Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension? Zhong Yu
- Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension? Yoav Nir
- Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension? Zhong Yu
- Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension? Roberto Peon
- Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension? Eliot Lear
- Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension? Michael Sweet