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

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Sun, 29 March 2015 06:49 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 E21E11A92E2 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 23:49:22 -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 oW8HNvvIXAEF for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 23:49:20 -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 22ADC1A92E0 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Mar 2015 23:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Yc6yE-0002e0-CW for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 06:45:18 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 06:45:18 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Yc6yE-0002e0-CW@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1Yc6y3-0002dA-C5 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 06:45:07 +0000
Received: from wtarreau.pck.nerim.net ([62.212.114.60] helo=1wt.eu) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1Yc6y1-0005FV-Fk for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 06:45:07 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id t2T6iUnQ006241; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 08:44:30 +0200
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 08:44:30 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20150329064430.GA6234@1wt.eu>
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> <55163579.5010100@treenet.co.nz> <CABkgnnW=CrC_odGTrEBmSgdsZ9=ipEnFp=8xnteSJdHeFvg0NQ@mail.gmail.com> <551746F4.5090003@treenet.co.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <551746F4.5090003@treenet.co.nz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.023, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1Yc6y1-0005FV-Fk 6dd8a88caa030e12462c4a9860c5d28f
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/20150329064430.GA6234@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/29052
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 Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 01:27:32PM +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> On 29/03/2015 8:13 a.m., Martin Thomson wrote:
> > On Mar 27, 2015 10:06 PM, "Amos Jeffries" <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
> >> Though the header is of less interest for Squid in its current form than
> >> I had thought earlier.
> > 
> > Maybe you can help us help you :) What specific property are you looking to
> > have exposed here?
> > 
> 
> A quick way to identify whether the inner protocol is TLS wrapped or
> not, without having to register all the sub-protocols inside the TLS or
> to sniff the TLS handshake.

Here at least the presence of the ALPN header will indicate TLS is present.
However we won't have any indication about non-TLS protocols as it seems
we both expected. But we could write a second proposal for this as well.

Willy