IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg> Tue, 10 December 2013 21:40 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@ritter.vg>
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 A847B1AE0FE for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 13:40:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 75AOTcRBtb8Z for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 13:40:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pb0-x232.google.com (mail-pb0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 757AC1AE04B for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 13:40:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pb0-f50.google.com with SMTP id rr13so8515895pbb.23 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 13:40:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ritter.vg; s=vg; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=h02Yj0ppXn7+lpvMfLlZM6qBf1lOYoHKQXoVlTbmvjI=; b=wiYSyhtC1q5wqi8elz3FrpMsw5YtSwIfkWjyRxx3lgd0+jNC6Ag3tcM+iS/TsGC7Mw ziC8/NZkSS36F2mzC4e6wwaMfuoB7/Xt+2kb0Cc8yQAzcM2RosoRWoW0z2mOrQa5j9Qf dUgYne+7dWFIJmC+HLLEMBxq050F0Wke4Tlj0=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=h02Yj0ppXn7+lpvMfLlZM6qBf1lOYoHKQXoVlTbmvjI=; b=aQvblLC9AxDHdX7oiiUosgaG//eoQ+GeO2Rjth64kPGWB2lBOAnq1UA8n0gilXLsSB qQOS8TeoLz4Xyte4YUfGFHj6xK2z6bfQj4PjWoVuh4MMmY3yR0SL20ZhS4Q9i8gynj5+ EzqplzwP8XqFcdFcZAHTRV2cA0mdxzK4LletiySpLSHvW+20WqWy3mHYjuV0eWuKuELR ovuYvT3mkq8v/5f1jlLxuMdx5yogG7gPs/LYAB8Ud338p5M9Zhd1STGJHgz7Tak/QUJz fZXPKFclU4JREPygVShZboEjLsFmY1aWxvbO4NzHqOypeuAiv2Z8a1kPgLIe7KzNNuHO uMBA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmuBJwT7rvY8Zuh5Enjm9C23XYYuhadkTUz53KxafH5B2oJ/BNuM+4B9dhR+A+pHdJuNdBK
X-Received: by 10.68.189.197 with SMTP id gk5mr30006585pbc.37.1386711646256; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 13:40:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.169.193 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 13:40:26 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <52A77DB4.7020501@gmx.net>
References: <CAFewVt7SS9ud8J=6VtR-Zv-9bhaTHEnjT8XD+ULaRSVUkYftaQ@mail.gmail.com> <52A77DB4.7020501@gmx.net>
From: Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:40:26 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+cU71mytODwE2C62x_LFrMFP8oBNOcYxGHw5fpLb6trkQdo9g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8ff1cc7a14da0504ed34f716"
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: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 21:40:52 -0000

On 10 December 2013 15:46, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>wrote:

>
> On 12/09/2013 03:22 PM, Brian Smith wrote:
> > I think we should re-evaluate whether we
> > still have consensus on moving forward with recommending ALPN as the
> > protocol negotiation mechanism to be used in TLS and specifically in
> > HTTP/2.
>
> +1
>

+1

I raised my preference for NPN over ALPN (and for generic post-CCS
extensions) last time around on the mailing list, and still keep that
preference.

-tom

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email