Re: [TLS] WGLC comments on draft-ietf-tls-applayerprotoneg-01

Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com> Tue, 20 August 2013 15:03 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir@checkpoint.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B329811E822E for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 08:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.682
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.682 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.083, 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 jYBjaha9wDbu for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 08:03:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.checkpoint.com (smtp.checkpoint.com [194.29.34.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BCE011E8247 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 08:03:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DAG-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com ([194.29.34.150]) by smtp.checkpoint.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r7KF33El022175; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 18:03:03 +0300
X-CheckPoint: {52138527-F-1B221DC2-1FFFF}
Received: from IL-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com ([169.254.2.105]) by DAG-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com ([169.254.3.223]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 18:03:02 +0300
From: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
Thread-Topic: [TLS] WGLC comments on draft-ietf-tls-applayerprotoneg-01
Thread-Index: AQHOnQaCdJJT7vp320qHp0flMWqEHJmc+GSAgABuHQCAALk1oP//4LWA
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:03:02 +0000
Message-ID: <481A01D8-58EC-4D96-B195-0E5413BE10A4@checkpoint.com>
References: <CABkgnnXUwLQnVNt19Advb3s7ZGoc_Mrmr7AodigxZKyEZmPYwg@mail.gmail.com> <3651ef9088a147dd8e8d887f769a9538@BL2PR03MB194.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <7F46F059-63FA-4ABB-9176-68345DA5398B@checkpoint.com> <2A0EFB9C05D0164E98F19BB0AF3708C711CDF869DC@USMBX1.msg.corp.akamai.com>
In-Reply-To: <2A0EFB9C05D0164E98F19BB0AF3708C711CDF869DC@USMBX1.msg.corp.akamai.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.31.20.252]
x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful
x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean
x-cpdlp: 113e4aab2a96b5cd77e94fa1e8ed2103d559ec1191
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <B17CD876331826469F03D3102F50CC5A@ad.checkpoint.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] WGLC comments on draft-ietf-tls-applayerprotoneg-01
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:03:15 -0000

On Aug 20, 2013, at 5:03 PM, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> wrote:

>> I have no problem with having HTTP/2.0 there now, as long as we're all clear that this does not relate to draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-xx, but only to the protocol in the eventual RFC.
> 
> I think that's asking for trouble.  Some implementations will start using it because "draft-ietf-xxxx is in last call" and then some fundamental major issue will be found and they don't interop.  If HTTP WG doesn't want it, then leave it out.  Perhaps when they publish their RFC they could include the appropriate app registration.

Makes no difference if it's in the registry, or if the IANA Considerations section says "IANA is requested to allocate the string "HTTP/2.0" for the specification in this document"

>> 3. The experimental namespace was requested by several TLS WG participants; it would be great if they could share their opinions of RFC 6648 section 3 "Recommendations for Creators of New Parameters".
> 
> If the protocol were a DNS CName entry, then the registration is 'free'  We could drop the requirement that the actual entry exist, just make it DNS syntax. And use example.com as the private/experimental space.
> 
> 	/r$
> 
> --  
> Principal Security Engineer
> Akamai Technology
> Cambridge, MA