IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> Thu, 12 December 2013 02:51 UTC

Return-Path: <watsonbladd@gmail.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 462EE1AE12C for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 18:51:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 HWzs8MlLfPmG for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 18:51:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22f.google.com (mail-wi0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34E7C1AE0AD for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 18:51:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f175.google.com with SMTP id hi5so8022525wib.2 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 18:51:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Wyab9rsqIN0SdK1+PjlMWR5lYAMZUUWZZgPyFDKfHyA=; b=HvoaSjWlgdvcVLADN3i8IHzmX5h5VvQp3WH+QNpMlE+lOiiabYnhtb9vqYE82Q89bT kVICBjWLi4xEUyq4yoBPMU5rOuiWw3/EUjOcWoorlSdtV5gCMJSrqyqVBPkC298tFShz Uvk2WVGuOknOqYtMfyqTzm/8klF4T8SFqF7ooRNLxKAs80sfF0Vwbui1JZVsjC7EXjrJ vXvj6KgXo76z6kJRrnHLrYAIx7WDPcKovDwYEcKkWqk4sk/DhfAxGQTdtdPGfuw71anj WXtLYmPv4yqRBGbZrJxPt2wGMLEYs9MKhJ9dtbml65doryr5rZgFYZ70z/aiyeyZdWun ENTQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.7.136 with SMTP id j8mr27454115wia.17.1386816676056; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 18:51:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.242.131 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 18:51:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.242.131 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 18:51:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <7B28991B-5377-433D-875B-DD3CE2FE7744@vpnc.org>
References: <CAFewVt7SS9ud8J=6VtR-Zv-9bhaTHEnjT8XD+ULaRSVUkYftaQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBM=gOZrm1EGDSer2RmGsbOoxPDSQK5t-+LZmWaB6a_swQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFewVt6ufrcteLfKA+r_7kby3fNRcwG410FJ1enu=pVO=xeBBQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALTJjxFPjAbRej4fMYWYnQDeNsyfo5sqXBrHoB+30Qr2EERBZg@mail.gmail.com> <7B28991B-5377-433D-875B-DD3CE2FE7744@vpnc.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 18:51:15 -0800
Message-ID: <CACsn0cnhVPy804nWmoMgGynqOQjTeoUp3sHoufoU+4Vpzy9E-Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="14dae9cdc8ff5857d904ed4d6b8f"
Cc: 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 02:51:24 -0000

On Dec 11, 2013 6:44 PM, "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
>
> On Dec 11, 2013, at 5:21 PM, Wan-Teh Chang <wtc@google.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Some people said to me that they were "willing" because the TLS chairs so
forcefully pushed the WG in one direction, there was no reason to discuss
it any further. The chair's message from yesterday despite the large number
of voices in support of re-opening makes that resignation seem more
appropriate.
And yet fixing Lucky 13, killing RC4 weren't on the agenda where chairs
were willing to push. Cui bono?
>
> --Paul Hoffman
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email