IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> Tue, 10 December 2013 20:46 UTC

Return-Path: <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
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 112BC1AE1CD for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 12:46:55 -0800 (PST)
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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 qBRxVRR5qHTc for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 12:46:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 425C41AE0D0 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 12:46:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.10.140] ([2.102.217.110]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LfC4q-1VFAIn3Ysq-00okAp for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 21:46:46 +0100
Message-ID: <52A77DB4.7020501@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 20:46:44 +0000
From: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
References: <CAFewVt7SS9ud8J=6VtR-Zv-9bhaTHEnjT8XD+ULaRSVUkYftaQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFewVt7SS9ud8J=6VtR-Zv-9bhaTHEnjT8XD+ULaRSVUkYftaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:SbxoF3ZikdUQejf/eRd4PH+RDc76dxl5chpWwpZ3mVRD+IcD8LB Y+8NdlAtLq8cjrIf1qhX6YdOdMx95NwCTWRnNly0ZmAT+H+TDvIhrO9GSA/DfbhTDDDZphS Xg/bSLEJJokM7kIaL7/NPI6ocAZnu4EWZ8NTwpUjKSRT96u/l2Uodmuzga/e5SkPPASy3Rb 3Mc8p/KY3Mki3nIVy8nBg==
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 20:46:55 -0000

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

I was in the room and I recall the discussions. I went to the microphone
and expressed my excitement about the fact that privacy related topics
where discussed in the TLS working group (given that privacy wasn't an
issue previously) and the response was "This has nothing to do with
privacy.".

Luckily we know much better now (or at least some people do).

Ciao
Hannes

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email