[TLS] Confirming Consensus: Negotiating upper layer protocols

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Thu, 07 February 2013 23:29 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 180C31F0CFF for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2013 15:29:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.976
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZfnW4gG-87Or for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2013 15:29:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qe0-f45.google.com (mail-qe0-f45.google.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC0C421F8D37 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Feb 2013 15:29:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qe0-f45.google.com with SMTP id b4so1432203qen.4 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Feb 2013 15:29:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:x-originating-ip:from:date:message-id :subject:to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=rofuB7OSQeje3DJBfvcyeQLEjMjM5hmDu3U58+y/qXQ=; b=N926w03BbnIhSW69WgM0Dcl4YMAeUvALAlOIv7kogDbpu6jx76XCYQJamQBFT9QP5Q 3xQkJzfg6JtTwAcdqQrkUZnzCD7nZXq70miG63i9nSFD/5rfKdOWhzCUtUhjuMGDsSPf bh6omY1PUeXI8Ber3WQ2lTJsByWmCFoTT6X9PQ9vb4x8LSdLgcJbFFY9QYta5NnW4Xub vueoyV4EtcPFoG6aDXMEIp3x/wATqnoBjBhnJ6epOcI0ljoAvwZhIsCsP8zmXkYrAyzX /K89yd/yadxXnep7lkGak6RXCuAIHTt+hY3W/SPgbg3fmC/AnceVbIVNXlNyVRw6Y1mr DlpQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id w6mr1340591qev.57.1360279760219; Thu, 07 Feb 2013 15:29:20 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 7 Feb 2013 15:28:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: []
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 15:28:40 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBM4Sor1oHQ15KtH=K=B3OUxaDUpfgS7=oHLHWeQpPngsQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: tls@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb04cf2e72dfb04d52acf3c
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk26yJN7uzu/8k4IUZEzvGix1XkVkv/01LKtO6OmaNufjDZLZkUJh+ztOy9V7dSkvdYbb/g
Subject: [TLS] Confirming Consensus: Negotiating upper layer protocols
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: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 23:29:23 -0000

TLS WG Members,

As discussed in Atlanta, we received a request from the HTTP WG
to work on the problem of negotiating the upper-layer protocol versions
(in particular HTTP 1.1 versus HTTP 2.0, but presumably we would
like a more general mechanism.)

There was strong consensus to work on this problem in Atlanta, as
well as strong support from our AD. This message is intended to
(a) confirm that consensus and (b) solicit proposals for discussion
in Orlando. Currently, we have two such proposals:


We intend to have presentations on these (and any other proposals
that come in) in Orlando. Depending on list discussion and what
other proposals appear, we may attempt to select a proposal in

WG members, please provide any comments on whether we should
take this work on by February 21. Additionally, if you wish to propose
an alternative, it would be nice if you could do so soon or at least
provide an indication of interest.

[For the chairs.]