IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Adam Langley <agl@google.com> Wed, 18 August 2010 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <agl@google.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 C7FDC3A68D3 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:12:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.717
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.717 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.260, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 69ICc16fx0ol for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:12:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C07C83A67F9 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hpaq12.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq12.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.12]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o7IGDROn003869 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:13:28 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1282148008; bh=zK3cIIPUeZx7OPXy9mzaFMUKgM0=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=sRtXbfURdRNO+HpfJCs/HM+xvnEVatK+w8F/rRdGNJmtEUEHdHb9n5g9dCS4Enf5w mjIxrlmY+LUAKAwzSJJcA==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to: cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=SV4zsPNBfDNr4BLzJqY7MAo78WW7N+aKr/YqU3HxyXgl0l8+DBCc1H6tkLIb50n3/ khYvZInyyj4knYlZ5utJw==
Received: from iwn36 (iwn36.prod.google.com [10.241.68.100]) by hpaq12.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o7IGDP9h019798 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:13:26 -0700
Received: by iwn36 with SMTP id 36so904518iwn.13 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.169.149 with SMTP id z21mr9646853iby.11.1282148005587; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.142.32 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4C6C01BE.8080009@extendedsubset.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> <4C6B8189.5080406@extendedsubset.com> <AANLkTi=9TLG4f5eZ6h6duYKvcVueT53H26WNZpWV6TKS@mail.gmail.com> <4C6C01BE.8080009@extendedsubset.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:13:25 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=ym+Akh3ExvC48=Rce==Y2Hn96u0pPOnG=u56q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
To: Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <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 16:12:56 -0000

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com> wrote:
> About the non-normative text it appears that "the motivation in the draft is
> outdated". So this review will have to disregard it.

Indeed. Since the initial draft other uses of NPN have been found and
are probably more compelling. I'm rewriting the motivation at the
moment.


AGL

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email