Re: Updated 9.2

On 11 October 2014 08:44, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

> You won't settle for anything short of MUST retry,
>

Not true.

The only think I'm insisting on is that I MUST have a non-fragile
handshake. I don't really care how that is done:   Not supporting weak h1
ciphers; retrying for all h1 ciphers; retrying for weak h1 ciphers;
enhancing ALPN to communicate protocol cipher requirements;  having a fixed
white list of h1 weak ciphers.

In the environment that Jetty is implemented, any support of 9.2.2 is only
going to be approximate at best.  We mostly will ony have access to the
cipher name and will have to do some regex matching on it to implement
9.2.2 - but we will be subject to configuration and surprise ciphers.  Thus
I just know that in reality our 9.2.2 implementation will only be
approximate.   This would be OK and we would make the effort - IFF we had a
non-fragile handshake.

I am MUST NOT fail to handshake when there are mutually acceptable
cipher/protocol pairs available - even if 9.2.2 implementation is not
perfect.

Give me a robust handshake - any way you see fit, and then I will make a
best effort attempt to implement 9.2.2.  Which if ciphers develop the way
you expect may well be a good implementation of it.

regards


-- 
Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>  @  Webtide - *an Intalio subsidiary*
http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.