Re: [tram] Fwd: Last Call: <draft-ietf-tram-alpn-06.txt> (Application Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) labels for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Usages) to Proposed Standard

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Tue, 28 October 2014 00:37 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tram@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tram@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0FAF1A0395 for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 17:37:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, 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 RZFJxk9vVS1z for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 17:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x232.google.com (mail-lb0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79C3F1A0360 for <tram@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 17:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f178.google.com with SMTP id f15so3134024lbj.37 for <tram@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 17:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
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=LiiKfrpOm518uHts0/O1YjvQUa3um//z/0IxYBrQK8o=; b=Chaic7UiRz1/w4RtGNJwKWaFcxzL7zjd9JMwHenzM379JOkNrc1/0PkBrYeygtNlES MhfUpsGR2AvVapyXcfH+VG969AR+542w89/mW0HbL6CnuHaICW5v1KAncrzRGosVXiEp YgB6GxBBmLnOaA9UxGGMm10B9eh7INDSejMyzh3SupDIAjlzDqKHEsAmuIb08VNeVajd LvojlQkOj437aQ7nNIOFBnjOAFzfmntfje/UmH23GXdKMzHw6X0XdSeucaj7gQ99XFw2 mh2S1VR3pn0SvcNbh6qcD/Ts3v5PyxthNGkjdQpQUOAtEE6HJ4Y77azhkf+kdoSVa6+X 2KKQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.216.200 with SMTP id os8mr13390330lac.85.1414456669856; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 17:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.215.217 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 17:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <544EE046.5080101@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <CAMfhd9VXA2aqB7hF6TyP10dW0x1y5uM_UEgM7JuQB9yPW8B+Kg@mail.gmail.com> <544E938B.1030802@gmail.com> <544EE046.5080101@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 17:37:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUCoFTL5DC+Eq1oLkZU4ahkkc6Hw8nYUvayn-VFKbkHUQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tram/poeT2DlM63wKWGgJJ7Yx5EYHCvE
Cc: "tram@ietf.org" <tram@ietf.org>, tls chair <tls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, Adam Langley <agl@imperialviolet.org>
Subject: Re: [tram] Fwd: Last Call: <draft-ietf-tram-alpn-06.txt> (Application Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) labels for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Usages) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: tram@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussing the creation of a Turn Revised And Modernized \(TRAM\) WG, which goal is to consolidate the various initiatives to update TURN and STUN." <tram.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tram>, <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/>
List-Post: <mailto:tram@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram>, <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:37:53 -0000

On 27 October 2014 17:16, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
> Not sure we're in a position to write ALPN guidance as you'd
> like right now, but were it just a paragraph like the above,
> then we could. I'd ask Adam L. to write that though others
> could be as good.


I think that my review strongly suggested removal of that text.  I
generally concur with agl on this point.  There are potentially even
cases where the intermediary won't see the initial round of the
handshake, so there is no chance of even seeing what *might* be
negotiated (not that you should be basing any decision on this marking
anyway).

Basically, this hook might be in the clear, or it might not.  Don't
expect to hang anything heavy on it.