IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Request for review: Next Protocol Negotiation Extension

Michael D'Errico <mike-list@pobox.com> Wed, 18 August 2010 19:08 UTC

Return-Path: <mike-list@pobox.com>
X-Original-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 224E53A6A6F for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4Xq-QDugfpZM for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:08:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com [208.72.237.25]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7985E3A691A for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:08:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12C86CED46; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:09:18 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=message-id :date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=Fovto3Of4UrN 8ZtDmp7u/wj0Yv4=; b=W5I7UqNiUMe01gzFBzFLJutsbyWCUe3XHgkVMWJ44oCR inPUwJqnyYHABccEXD5ngM6R6q6LRrXUpUw0beNxFswQHYHUfaAdM3Vgg4ghtFDQ jaiahn8wcZMv4j/p3+0W0CTR/pHPeqgimImhJ4HW7CNzTibbwNz0G5PIoh3rUms=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=message-id:date :from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=Cbovo/ gil+INRXpCNOV7Tx6l5JK6zlVeTmjy5dstgiv5tS04kTXWcpGSBew49AODjp79e5 vSvVAzACS27lz2bWY7CEOqOqzIF8Fntfu6LU8JS/iaZscL4z0ZOCyZMBKEENr7/H l31VsJkOPrYbbwMOtpMJaZ/qiQ7zuW8g9hYFg=
Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDE82CED45; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:09:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from iMac.local (unknown [24.234.114.35]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7E556CED44; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:09:15 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4C6C2FDA.6070307@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:09:14 -0700
From: Michael D'Errico <mike-list@pobox.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
References: <AANLkTi=5H_0hGzxMmfNU0hLS=5psW6J3c2to756OT--7@mail.gmail.com> <4C69938A.9080808@gnutls.org> <AANLkTin3eQHNJPuVuVw09FbPUF4RBk7n9RFbc7EaFbM+@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=dfCZNndm678OFkCZdzRhzfmRvBmZVLUD5-ueF@mail.gmail.com> <4C6AB936.1070801@extendedsubset.com> <AANLkTimgjqQMdwqL_xZXGSG5hSMLqDtYH62t698e_hx9@mail.gmail.com> <4C6AD7EA.4040307@extendedsubset.com> <000401cb3e4f$456f6d60$d04e4820$@briansmith.org> <4C6B1BAA.5060303@pobox.com> <AANLkTi=QzEmzuhX=rKkTFjVvWxP5r_0zcVHq00L-4JoS@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=QzEmzuhX=rKkTFjVvWxP5r_0zcVHq00L-4JoS@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 18D319B8-AAFC-11DF-9F05-9056EE7EF46B-38729857!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Request for review: Next Protocol Negotiation Extension
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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/listinfo/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, 18 Aug 2010 19:08:53 -0000

Adam Barth wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com> wrote:
>> On 08/17/2010 04:00 PM, Brian Smith wrote:
> 
>>> Google, Amazon.com, and others claim significant decreases in revenue that
>>> correlate with increases in latency of 100ms or even less.
>> Interesting, I had heard of that. Link?
> 
> This is a well-established fact.

This needs clarification.  I interpret the statement as:

    Google et. al. claim significant decreases in revenue
    when their latency is (x + 100ms) versus when latency
    is x.

What is x?

Mike

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email