IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: ALPN negotiation (was Re: Add extension work to Interop matrix)

Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com> Thu, 09 January 2020 13:54 UTC

Return-Path: <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B8CC1200F7 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 05:54:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=litespeedtech-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 r-vJ8NElQkiD for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 05:54:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x733.google.com (mail-qk1-x733.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::733]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B90461200F4 for <quic@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 05:54:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x733.google.com with SMTP id z76so6014339qka.2 for <quic@ietf.org>; Thu, 09 Jan 2020 05:54:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=litespeedtech-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=COXpPKJ9rSAHxgWfp8qVMGMxgM8gknI1BxX7yEW3lBs=; b=gl0YQfIvo5JNey80CnndrYX62vJ9xLzQQif2m/xCK4OjwFkk8vzQNug+6Lu/sF6F/5 /5wlJ54YsUQXXvJSVQPFt4cAvZDT6lbC/h4bvZ4suHzK9QBVvgWaDn2iCclY5+C2/zhE TEoDzRNfTLcpUKAov4ocy3d+4HGYwwWKI2JSdZkOp8KOgDWyidQ0P2ovXLCLVDOyZ+eh CeCzbDmNBGJYo0LFLeY+fEOzT8IbUMeousiDscjqRl/51p6uOUPaD2mrnbbV1O6R+O85 sndWBaSm1waNG/duJkkA4b5paVpNugOBgGj4GW/pd6vwksKGn91RpzFSHvqIzfpfEPVc e99g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=COXpPKJ9rSAHxgWfp8qVMGMxgM8gknI1BxX7yEW3lBs=; b=iqbu8FB45cNNY5ZrXXmJ6O0Vmu9eHZGeHubnITKeGjCQNCitWpqkPUmTNECZ5KBjLz 1g2NEFZ3HfziexrUsWYUDEPkhgQnbWF2lQOyrntb4i45gyioOAp/BW5oSPuibmNTQMWn +Xn6xKT1VjRPbVbXOIEaFpAXm4r9FrqXyHWAEV953f95vtFRNYogrwzkw2f6CDy/b6zZ XY5GeEXc+TV6TcUWZDkfYX20gMWDG+V6vT8Yg1s9o0fD5S/jbTN7gp8dEtDycCaOjDuo fdWbJPeDtIZPBwLjdN4rrY1n9JCSxQsUASSpLFcratkOjXO++73qJYhVUHO4zNi5g01K LEkg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU3PB9DVpKpMAIi9HGduENYUYEGuUKut8mhTY2/+YNHb2zqL/zU hA73a7juiF3geCylbRd4C5i8Ug==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy2HKlOWvt0HemfSJ9qzOeVxuJZ2d8yfArudPkEDSJ+7axQDvdkQhVA4Za95mQP0qrGVRf0wA==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2041:: with SMTP id d1mr9626129qka.113.1578578062861; Thu, 09 Jan 2020 05:54:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ubuntu-dmitri (ool-2f1636b6.static.optonline.net. [47.22.54.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m68sm3075206qke.17.2020.01.09.05.54.22 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 09 Jan 2020 05:54:22 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 08:54:20 -0500
From: Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com>
To: Andrei Popov <Andrei.Popov@microsoft.com>
Cc: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: ALPN negotiation (was Re: Add extension work to Interop matrix)
Message-ID: <20200109135420.GB7263@ubuntu-dmitri>
Mail-Followup-To: Andrei Popov <Andrei.Popov@microsoft.com>, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
References: <20200107143114.GC14229@ubuntu-dmitri> <d27fc30c-7f51-85f3-4bb1-e7b7b500ac72@huitema.net> <20200107194543.GK14229@ubuntu-dmitri> <BN8PR00MB045127DC046153EB655CAF1A8C3F0@BN8PR00MB0451.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BN8PR00MB045127DC046153EB655CAF1A8C3F0@BN8PR00MB0451.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/nHLJvtunPOeVsyNtZ7GGDVoNWyw>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 13:54:25 -0000

That's true.

Then, what would the test be?

  - Dmitri.

On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 07:49:52PM +0000, Andrei Popov wrote:
> >     1. Client sends (h3-X, h3-Y), server responds with h3-X; and
> >     2. Client sends (h3-Y, h3-X), server responds with h3-Y?
> 
> Not necessarily. The server will likely choose an ALPN ID based on the server's application protocol preferences, rather than the client's.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Andrei
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: QUIC <quic-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Dmitri Tikhonov
> Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 11:46 AM
> To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
> Cc: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: ALPN negotiation (was Re: Add extension work to Interop matrix)
> 
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 09:06:49AM -1000, Christian Huitema wrote:
> > It seems that ALPN negotiation is going to be a practical requirement 
> > going forward. Not so much for negotiating H09 versus H3, we can 
> > expect
> > H09 to fade away at some point. But we will have to negotiate h3-24 vs
> > h3-25 and similar transitions for a good bit of time, and then we will 
> > probably move to h4-00, h4-01, etc. So maybe we should start testing that.
> 
> I would be for it.  Is the testing as simple as
> 
>     1. Client sends (h3-X, h3-Y), server responds with h3-X; and
>     2. Client sends (h3-Y, h3-X), server responds with h3-Y?
> 
> Of course, this assumes that the server support both h3-X and h3-Y.
> For example, supporting drafts 23 and 24 at the same time was easy;
> 24 and 25 might not be as easy.
> 
>   - Dmitri.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email