W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2013

RE: Questions about ALPN

From: Andrei Popov <Andrei.Popov@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 21:28:18 +0000
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
CC: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@cisco.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5c1aa8534cb749b189f283cf32729aac@BL2PR03MB194.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
This would create problems. If the TLS layer were in the business of interpreting the contents of the protocol IDs, this would break the separation of the protocol layers (even further). Besides, if a TLS server is not aware of one of the protocol IDs hashed together by the client, the server would have no way to interpret the hashed set.

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 2:20 PM
To: Mike Bishop
Cc: Andrei Popov; Alexey Melnikov; Joseph Salowey (jsalowey); ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Questions about ALPN

On 28 October 2013 14:12, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Except that, as I understand the proposal Martin is referring to, it's a single hash of the (multiple) protocol IDs you support.  It very substantially changes ALPN's matching model, or at the very least adds a second layer.

The major change is that P[response] is not a strict subset of P[request].  So, yes.
Received on Monday, 28 October 2013 21:28:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:18 UTC