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

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

I have read the draft and think that it is largely ready for
publication, though there are a few minor issues that should be
resolved regarding application strings.

(I sent some of these comments to the authors privately.)

Can I request that when you create the registry in ALPN that you do
not register HTTP/2.0?  More likely than not, ALPN will precede
HTTP/2.0 and I want to avoid having a dependency issue, particularly
if we find that we need to change the string for some reason.

I'm also a little concerned about the existence of a registration for
HTTP/1.1, particularly when that registration differs from the string
used in the protocol itself (even if only in letter case).  Have the
authors consulted the HTTPbis working group about these registrations?

The other issue is the definition of the 'exp' prefix.  RFC 6648
advises against defining such constructs.  I would prefer if this
prefix were not defined.