- From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
- Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 07:26:45 +0200
- To: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
- CC: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Simone Bordet <simone.bordet@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 5/30/14, 4:08 PM, Michael Sweet wrote: > Eliot, > > On May 29, 2014, at 12:57 PM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote: >>> ... >>> I haven't seen any justification for creating a protocol variation. >>> See Section 3.4 of RFC 6709: >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6709#section-3.4 >> That's really not the intent, if not the reading, of that section. A >> variation occurs within a protocol, and the key focus of that text is >> one of assuring interoperability with means to identify among the >> communicating systems that different rules in play. Here there are >> clear mechanisms to do that. They are talking about a separate clearly >> identified protocol. Whether or not a separate protocol is warranted is >> a different discussion. Michael says yes. > I didn't say anything about a separate protocol. But that is how it would be implemented, as far as TLS is concerned, unless you're taking a roundtrip hit. Eliot
Received on Monday, 2 June 2014 05:27:16 UTC