- From: 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 10:34:29 -0700
- To: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2013 17:34:56 UTC
FWIW, it seems reasonable to me to have the spec allow HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension. If you want to Upgrade, be my guest. I have no plans for my browser to support that, and I don't think Google servers will support it either, because we care strongly about the advantages of TLS-ALPN vs Upgrade. IIRC, Twitter doesn't use NPN for the same reasons (lack of TLS extension support on certain mobile clients). I believe they don't care about public interop though, they just use dedicated VIPs with clients they control. On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:06 AM, Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com> wrote: > The draft mandates TLS extension ALPN for any https 2.0 connections, > but why is that necessary? Why can't we also establish an https 2.0 > connection through the Upgrade mechanism, without ALPN? TLS extension > may not be available/convenient on some platforms for some time; > requiring it may discourage some potential implementers. > > Zhong Yu > >
Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2013 17:34:56 UTC