- From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 20:56:53 +1000
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Received on Friday, 5 September 2014 10:57:21 UTC
Note that RFC7301 says: This document describes a Transport Layer Security (TLS) extension for application-layer protocol negotiation within the TLS handshake If 9.2.2. is to stand, then I believe that we need a new version of ALPN specification (or errata or similar) that says something like: This document describes a Transport Layer Security (TLS) extension for negotiation of application-layer protocol and TLS cipher suite combinations within the TLS handshake Otherwise, when ALPN is natively supported in the JVM8, there is nothing stopping them implementing it as we did according to RFC7301 and producing an extension that only negotiates protocol and thus cannot support what 9.2.2 requires. It would also still be good to get an answer of why we need 9.2.2 ? If the ciphers are inadequate for h2, then why aren't they inadequate for http/1, spdy and other protocols the ALPN might list? -- Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales http://www.webtide.com advice and support for jetty and cometd.
Received on Friday, 5 September 2014 10:57:21 UTC