Re: [TLS] Request for review: Next Protocol Negotiation Extension

Adam Langley <agl@google.com> Mon, 16 August 2010 17:33 UTC

Return-Path: <agl@google.com>
X-Original-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CB2F3A69FF for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:33:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.677
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZCIRV+2dldUQ for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:33:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B64B23A69FE for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:33:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wpaz9.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz9.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.73]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o7GHYVCv007024 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:34:31 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1281980071; bh=hrBWEdUyqFHRokYEI1YnOr8TgLY=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=ktclyvSsM1oATTfgCXps/fjMGScBXOc0O//qHLc5FlV4dXkWX1s4vpPuHII6Zunzo 8hLfyCft/XMB/6WagDlXw==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to: cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=YDX4itp5DGRzW62nzWMy/S5lVuOd7vFrXrHwZphqVDfuCMPAmQ3Rt+7SEujRPR6hk yWy1GE3VUNxhCTxLxSing==
Received: from iwn6 (iwn6.prod.google.com [10.241.68.70]) by wpaz9.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o7GHYUPK013143 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:34:30 -0700
Received: by iwn6 with SMTP id 6so1938244iwn.40 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.77.155 with SMTP id g27mr5804645ibk.195.1281980070230; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.142.32 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinpTAvT=btYzc=eufXgGDQQv=K8_8FNOG5y+3aJ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=5H_0hGzxMmfNU0hLS=5psW6J3c2to756OT--7@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinpTAvT=btYzc=eufXgGDQQv=K8_8FNOG5y+3aJ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:34:30 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTinNH1i7uJ5qrHi4OeuHVEC1=aGOrnb1mq0F0Wsb@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Request for review: Next Protocol Negotiation Extension
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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/listinfo/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: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 17:33:58 -0000

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> The status of NPN is that a draft exists, but there hasn't been a huge
> amount of discussion
> on the list, it has never been presented at a meeting, isn't a WG item, and
> the chairs
> have never been asked to take it on as such.

Previously, I didn't want to push the standards process forward before
we had interoperable implementions and some real world testing. Since
the first posting of the NPN draft we now have NSS support[1] (out of
tree) and OpenSSL support (in their CVS). Both have been heavily
tested.

With the added interest of WebSockets, I would now like to request
that the chairs consider this draft as a possible WG item.


[1] http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/net/third_party/nss/patches/nextproto.patch?view=markup

AGL