- From: Hervé Ruellan <herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 17:23:25 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 04/30/2015 04:43 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > (see <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/43>) > > > ALPN identifiers from the ALPN spec have been defined in the context > > of negotiating the application protocol in TLS. In this context, they > > imply a layering above TLS. > > When used outside this context, there is an ambiguity, mainly for the > > http/1.1 token: does it refer to HTTP/1.1 over TLS, or can it refer > > also to HTTP/1.1 over TCP? > > The draft should resolve this ambiguity by stating that the http/1.1 > > identifier is used to identify HTTP/1.1 over TLS. > > Right now we do not mention "http/1.1" at all. Should that change? I think we should remove the ambiguity to make clear that http/1.1 is over TLS. > > > In addition, a new identifier, h1c for example, could be defined to > > identify HTTP/1.1 over cleartext TCP, in order to allow using Alt-Svc > > to be used to target an HTTP/1.1 server over cleartext TCP. > > Is this a use case we want to address? I think there is a general sense that we should not define such an identifier to instead promote the usage of TLS. > > Best regards, Julian > Best regards, Hervé
Received on Thursday, 30 April 2015 15:23:56 UTC