- From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 10:14:31 +1300
- To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
One more thought on this. A proxy wanting to do cert verification on TLS needs to know if the next layer is TLS. Requiring a proxy to recognise all ALPN ids to know this I think is a bad design decision. > On 26/01/2015, at 8:14 am, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote: > > ok, that's what I was getting at in my initial query > > it may help then to make that clear in the dfraft that the ALPN id is the thing specifying whether TLS is the next layer or not > > So for those concerned with privacy, the client could simply advertise TLS > > You will need to make sure all the variants are registered as ALPN ids though as well, such as > > pop3 and pop3s, smtp and smtps, imap etc etc > > these will all have different meanings in a TLS APLN option vs the Tunnel-Protocol field (as they will have 1 layer of TLS difference). In some protocols, such as ftp, there's already a lot of confusion (e.g. difference between ftps and sftp), I see this requirement adding to that. > > You'd need to make sure that for every protocol you could see in a TLS APLN option, there was a corresponding -s version defined for T-P. > > Might just it not be easier to be able to separately specify the TLS layer, and allow then the T-P header to exactly match the ALPN in the TLS handshake? Some proxies definitely will want to check if the client lied about it. > > Adrien > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com> > To: "Adrien de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com> > Cc: "Amos Jeffries" <squid3@treenet.co.nz>; "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> > Sent: 25/01/2015 6:20:46 p.m. > Subject: Re: New tunnel protocol > >>> On 24 January 2015 at 19:33, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote: >>> The problem for me as a proxy implementor, is I still don't know whether to >>> expect there to be a TLS layer in there or not. Please don't make me resort >>> to sniffing or daft heuristics to figure this out. Just make it explicit. >>> If there is an and/or option, include a way to clearly state this in the >>> protocol. >> >> The ALPN identifier tells you if there is TLS. > >
Received on Sunday, 25 January 2015 21:15:12 UTC