- From: Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 14:29:26 -0700
- To: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
- Cc: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJ_4DfR=OgXx8e7j=Fmvt+VmoHUE2y8dT6E=6-ifuKCoyF8SPg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree TLS-ALPN is much better than TLS-Upgrade, but it'll take the > rest of the world some time to get there. It's going to take the rest of the world some time to deploy HTTP/2, as well. Do you think that ALPN will be harder to deploy than HTTP/2? > Allowing TLS-Upgrade > meanwhile probably will not lessen the motivation to deploy ALPN, > since it's in the best interest of all clients and servers to reduce a > round trip. > > *If* the spec allows TLS-Upgrade, some servers will use it before they > can do ALPN, and some clients will support it. Chrome will face the > heat - a competitor browser can talk to a server in HTTPS/2.0 with > Upgrade, yet Chrome can only talk to it in HTTPS/1.1. Will Chrome > stick to its principle and refuse to speak with the vulgar Upgrade? I > bet a lunch that it will budge. > > Therefore if the spec allows TLS-Upgrade, it might as well mandate it. > > The other option is to absolutely forbid TLS-Upgrade and disown any > implementation that does it, deliberately or accidentally (the latter > being more likely). > > Zhong Yu > > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) > <willchan@chromium.org> wrote: > > 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 21:29:53 UTC