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

Re: HTTPS 2.0 without TLS extension?

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 21:34:25 +1200
Message-ID: <51EF9FA1.3010207@treenet.co.nz>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 24/07/2013 9:29 a.m., Ryan Hamilton wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com 
> <mailto: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.
> ‚ÄčIt'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?

Red herring argument.  If ALPN is the mandatory requirement of HTTP/2 it 
cannot be harder. They will be equal or HTTP/2 will be harder - since it 
includes more than just ALPN.

The issue in question is whether or not ALPN should be mandatory in the 
first place, or if allowing other mechanisms will encourage faster 
HTTP/2 adoption. Whether or not those other mechanisms are slower or 
worse than ALPN - do they encourage or help rollout?

IMHO, this is an issue where we can afford to wait and see. Probably we 
will end up with ALPN as mandatory the others as optional to encourage 
the more efficient method.

Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2013 09:35:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:14 UTC