Re: alpn identifiers (not again!)

I would expect if we put POP3 over SCTP we shouldn't have to do any work 
to POP3 at all. Or SCTP

That's the whole point of having independent layers.

If we did have to, we got something wrong first by not making them 

Maybe POP3 and TCP is a bad example.

We don't change Ethernet to put IP over it, and we don't change IP to 
put TCP or UDP or GRE or the next protocol over it.

We shouldn't have to change TCP to put HTTP over it.  We didn't change 
HTTP to put it over TLS over TCP

------ Original Message ------
From: "Martin Thomson" <>
To: "Adrien de Croy" <>
Cc: "Stefan Eissing" <>; "HTTP Working 
Group" <>
Sent: 11/06/2015 11:11:17 a.m.
Subject: Re: alpn identifiers (not again!)

>On 10 June 2015 at 15:48, Adrien de Croy <> wrote:
>>  we didn't redesign TCP when we invented POP3 did we?
>I'm not sure how that is relevant.
>If we ported POP3 to SCTP, I'd imagine that would take quite a bit of
>work.  Identifying the result as POP3+SCTP rather than POP3 might be a
>good idea at that point.

Received on Thursday, 11 June 2015 00:13:38 UTC