IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] SNI and ALPN -- which firsr?

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Wed, 30 July 2014 16:29 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.com>
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 638B41A0301 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:29:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 gQ4p9IP8Lrka for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:29:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from prod-mail-xrelay08.akamai.com (prod-mail-xrelay08.akamai.com [96.6.114.112]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 568DD1A0300 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:29:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from prod-mail-xrelay08.akamai.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by postfix.imss70 (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFBF0484C5; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:29:30 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from prod-mail-relay08.akamai.com (prod-mail-relay08.akamai.com [172.27.22.71]) by prod-mail-xrelay08.akamai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4BA0484C3; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:29:30 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from usma1ex-cashub.kendall.corp.akamai.com (usma1ex-cashub6.kendall.corp.akamai.com [172.27.105.22]) by prod-mail-relay08.akamai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDB2A9804A; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:29:30 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from USMBX1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.107.26]) by USMA1EX-CASHUB6.kendall.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.105.22]) with mapi; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 12:29:30 -0400
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 12:29:29 -0400
Thread-Topic: [TLS] SNI and ALPN -- which firsr?
Thread-Index: Ac+sEn6VGsT7FFs5TuGANc/2njqY8QAAJ5iQ
Message-ID: <2A0EFB9C05D0164E98F19BB0AF3708C718599EE035@USMBX1.msg.corp.akamai.com>
References: <2A0EFB9C05D0164E98F19BB0AF3708C718599EDDDB@USMBX1.msg.corp.akamai.com> <CABkgnnW2x9v36GkwSic6+0B=S9ZxD9X6MLq3Upqk8XqyXMOtjA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnW2x9v36GkwSic6+0B=S9ZxD9X6MLq3Upqk8XqyXMOtjA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/UTp_hEI-DynXypGdQf6wJNXho_I
Cc: "TLS@ietf.org (tls@ietf.org)" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] SNI and ALPN -- which firsr?
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: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:29:37 -0000

> Is there a particular reason that a fixed order would be of an advantage?

A fixed order of precedence is generally a good thing.  Among other things, it forces you to think about  the interactions and encourages consistent behavior.  For example, which do YOU think should be done first?

But I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it if the WG feels otherwise.

--  
Principal Security Engineer
Akamai Technologies, Cambridge MA
IM: rsalz@jabber.me Twitter: RichSalz

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email