RE: Questions about ALPN

If protocol ID segregation is desired, perhaps ALPN protocol IDs could be segregated by prefix, e.g. "HTTP/X" protocol IDs for Web applications.

Also, the ALPN protocol ID registry operates under the "Expert Review" policy, the idea being that expert review will prevent inappropriate registrations.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Bishop 
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:45 AM
To: Mark Nottingham; Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
Cc: Martin J. Dürst; Andrei Popov;
Subject: RE: Questions about ALPN

HTTP(S) is allowed on any port -- 80 and 443 are used when the port's not specified, and most likely to work across intermediaries, but a URI can always specify a different port.  I would presume the same is true of any other protocol.  I don't think segregating the registry by port is going to fly very far.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Nottingham [] 
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 10:16 PM
To: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
Cc: Martin J. Dürst; Andrei Popov;
Subject: Re: Questions about ALPN

On 29/10/2013, at 4:57 AM, "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <> wrote:

> [Joe] This may be part of the disconnect.   The ALPN extension was not designed to be solely used by the HTTPbis framework.   At this point I don't think it is safe to assume that everything in the registry will be relevant to HTTPbis.   Is this a problem for HTTPbis?

Well, it's an interesting question. We need a registry that the various things can point to. If some of the contents of this registry aren't appropriate, we might need to have a separate registry. Which means that people would have to do *two* registrations, which seems like busy work.

What if you didn't have any registry at all -- what if the name space of possible ALPN tokens being used was scoped by the port in use? Just thinking out loud.

Mark Nottingham

Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2013 17:59:42 UTC