Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs

On 6/12/13 10:57 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le Ven 6 décembre 2013 07:05, Amos Jeffries a écrit :
>> No train wreck or problems there. *provided* we get a clear consensus
>> and definition of what 2.0 proxies etc is to do with those
>> unknown/future frame types.
> Security people will ask to drop anything unknown since if it's unknown it
> can't be evaluated for malfeasance potential.
A firewall proxy would definitely do that. So unless we want to kill 
extensibility, we have two options:
  - New extension frames require an advertised new version that 
firewalls can downgrade if they don't support, or
  - That client and server can live with those frames getting dropped.

Other proxies, like caches that don't evaluate malfeasance can just 
forward unknown frames.


Received on Friday, 6 December 2013 09:15:20 UTC