- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 15:08:51 -0700
- To: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 9 June 2015 at 10:39, Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de> wrote: > Now, if I want to advertise that clients may connect via DTLS or maybe ssh to an endpoint that talks h2 (or h1 with upgrade), one would need a new ALPN identifier. Ok. But that id will never be meaningful in ALPN. Right. Though it might be used in ALPN. Say that HTTP/3 runs over DTLS. That does ALPN. Or maybe there is a new protocol that decides to negotiate protocols using exactly the same mechanism and identifiers as ALPN, just not in TLS. Is that ALPN? > That gives me the feeling that something is not right. > All that is specified will work. I am just looking for a way to do this better. Sure. I understand. Sometimes, to make a specification, you have to break some abstractions.
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2015 22:09:19 UTC