IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Wan-Teh Chang <wtc@google.com> Thu, 12 December 2013 01:21 UTC

Return-Path: <wtc@google.com>
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 7B1201ADF95 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:21:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.38
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.38 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 eZlR0skpXKbt for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:21:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ve0-x22c.google.com (mail-ve0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70E811ADBD4 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:21:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ve0-f172.google.com with SMTP id jw12so6634784veb.31 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:21:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=V58d3t9rq88P9vcJ0GZAkswWZ4w92rwaPglpfvtB6GA=; b=PkiKHvvZwEK4KwmnL0WGLqPutD5DStIfwOJPT5Em313ioGqjuWsDAdSlUNB7eOGhBn oXo9tiQuaZ5nY2bVkfLiJLiL3GZ3YjgsaNAzUjDQPKACzePlg/cexmZp8BVzDwuPdNxO 87t+K3A6y70d0NMJKdMbLIwCaBFb8Eh3n1kpFcOrLj2+zmBnaoMTfvobhr+3tTQ10i6v YLbYIWVzfk+DufES563xHWVLvaRvWJpEdh6u4SHneJCXtTMZCytGrszCbso+5PTBD9Ul 6ZIVo4bJTv+P7fmQW/rOt5jiaYDDXZqoVoJuMDqLd3kj7h73KxcZJzgtn68r6Wi7UtoH fC0A==
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:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=V58d3t9rq88P9vcJ0GZAkswWZ4w92rwaPglpfvtB6GA=; b=D6bQDtyciT2ptm8ptT68XQIFlgL4Ql1TDU3+0v5E5edyk9HvgM6dC0TLj2ZSOLDoFc 9ITldZn+qg/0nNMJPXUD8UkjkyBg6dHZjkQsdrAw2reWC21Tv/K4WzNmF4qHc4OyJ1tU cBVdLgWQCUJw2i/uKxcqlGZMIzMDRpcA6B+4Y9Edssgf85ZLCMRxZ1HIj8C/B0nm0+Sx GF/VE9+QpfA5UNwNAc5WotwqVSTDjboQOWO2viQbf+BBpmbrDNOJMjO20JicwDTXbivc gD3sw5XXEeTcC4iBa/2t8RLJsYN7wERjgqdJwulkjD3nW6pLZQig5cjG0kXa9k1zsI2c soqg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmZ8dEycbpvvXyT/WFBL7728UH6lV4maZZhby0c3xrgVRvj2fpe57PrfZepxRISqM1/BHxhi4h4c+pOxbloKFoI5UCEQwt5z6xZcTvR2W4/9wb5vUcKLKHZ+LXTeBb2fU+115Rt6vhGliiyz1P71/ikbfSyhHZNYg4W8QvVa9VsEQ+TMXS+OPLXYzkhyUpei4rw6D+D
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.194.133 with SMTP id dy5mr1936354vcb.3.1386811308501; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:21:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.52.167.10 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:21:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAFewVt6ufrcteLfKA+r_7kby3fNRcwG410FJ1enu=pVO=xeBBQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFewVt7SS9ud8J=6VtR-Zv-9bhaTHEnjT8XD+ULaRSVUkYftaQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBM=gOZrm1EGDSer2RmGsbOoxPDSQK5t-+LZmWaB6a_swQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFewVt6ufrcteLfKA+r_7kby3fNRcwG410FJ1enu=pVO=xeBBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:21:48 -0800
Message-ID: <CALTJjxFPjAbRej4fMYWYnQDeNsyfo5sqXBrHoB+30Qr2EERBZg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wan-Teh Chang <wtc@google.com>
To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
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: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 01:21:55 -0000

Brian,

To me, the ALPN vs. NPN debate is like emacs vs. vi and Linux vs.
FreeBSD. We can talk passionately about it forever, but at some point
we need to make a decision and move on.

On Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2013 I was in the two sessions at IETF 88
Vancouver where ALPN was discussed. I witnessed several people spoke
in support of you after you spoke at the TLS WG session. The strange
thing is that some of those people also attended the httpbis WG
session that morning and heard Stephan Friedl's presentation of ALPN,
but none of them raised any objection then. This seems to imply they
were also willing to accept ALPN, until you tried to reopen the issue.

Wan-Teh Chang

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email