Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Describe interaction between QUIC and TLS regarding saved 0-RTT state (#2947)

MikkelFJ <> Fri, 13 September 2019 05:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66BA9120086 for <>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 22:55:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.454
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.454 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S9xLSMmwElJa for <>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 22:55:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDFE1120024 for <>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 22:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 22:55:44 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1568354145; bh=xnVy8AKoUzYGARVDUPhGqRBH2SWVnbJk67x/CjkvtaQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=y717YDA1wuszxcquObag18t2IDlZnKLbJKKtItWYnF529L5Di+runm4Nzt6cRnPPx yO5y3rQgPCdUkahT9I789oWLQwPkAoKMABp6LxOM6KYz81DqmQsibFDVGSWElBSu1H Z+hGGQAC8nt+mxf6z9tPrCb6Aqm9Irxm+0jgu6QI=
From: MikkelFJ <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2947/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Describe interaction between QUIC and TLS regarding saved 0-RTT state (#2947)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d7b2f60eec0b_20d73ff05e0cd968117562"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mikkelfj
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 05:55:48 -0000

> Should they become per-SNI + per-ALPN?

Does it even make sense to assume ALPN is always present in multiplexing protocols? An endpoint could have multiple active protocols on the same connection even if that is not supported by any protocol we currently know of.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: