Re: [TLS] A new consensus call on ALPN vs NPN (was ALPN concerns)

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Thu, 12 December 2013 02:44 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 463F61ADFA0 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 18:44:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] autolearn=no
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 dlpctA1djcv0 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 18:44:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B29E1AD8EE for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 18:44:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id rBC2i4Ew027538 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Dec 2013 19:44:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41] claimed to be [10.20.30.90]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CALTJjxFPjAbRej4fMYWYnQDeNsyfo5sqXBrHoB+30Qr2EERBZg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 18:44:04 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7B28991B-5377-433D-875B-DD3CE2FE7744@vpnc.org>
References: <CAFewVt7SS9ud8J=6VtR-Zv-9bhaTHEnjT8XD+ULaRSVUkYftaQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBM=gOZrm1EGDSer2RmGsbOoxPDSQK5t-+LZmWaB6a_swQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFewVt6ufrcteLfKA+r_7kby3fNRcwG410FJ1enu=pVO=xeBBQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALTJjxFPjAbRej4fMYWYnQDeNsyfo5sqXBrHoB+30Qr2EERBZg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wan-Teh Chang <wtc@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
Cc: "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] A new consensus call on ALPN vs NPN (was ALPN concerns)
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 02:44:14 -0000

On Dec 11, 2013, at 5:21 PM, Wan-Teh Chang <wtc@google.com> wrote:

> but none of them raised any objection then. This seems to imply they
> were also willing to accept ALPN, until you tried to reopen the issue.

Some people said to me that they were "willing" because the TLS chairs so forcefully pushed the WG in one direction, there was no reason to discuss it any further. The chair's message from yesterday despite the large number of voices in support of re-opening makes that resignation seem more appropriate.

--Paul Hoffman