Re: Requiring TLS 1.3 as alternative to HTTP/2 section 9.2.2

> 
> On Oct 28, 2014, at 1:03 PM, Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org> wrote:
> The ordering of HTTP/2 and TLS 1.3 is backwards from an ideal world
> for this, but it seems like it might be better to try and aim for something that gets
> us into a good state 18 months out from now if it means reduced complexity
> in both the short-term and the long-term.  The cost seems to be that the initial
> HTTP/2 implementations may start falling back if not updated within some time period.

What about the question of scope with 1.3 that Dave asked? If you limit 1.3 to just ciphers
and negotiation (e.g. fallback scsv etc), does that potentially improve the schedule? I suppose the challenge is the required interop events and implementation.

--
Jason T. Greene
WildFly Lead / JBoss EAP Platform Architect
JBoss, a division of Red Hat

Received on Tuesday, 28 October 2014 18:48:29 UTC