Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol

On 27/03/2015 12:36 p.m., Adrien de Croy wrote:
> 
> hi Martin
> 
> I must have misread something then, because it seems to me from the
> draft that the Tunnel-Protocol header is intended to contain what either
> 
> a) could be in a TLS ALPN negotiation if the next layer is TLS (T-P
> identifies the next layer after TLS)
> b) would identify the protocol directly if the next layer is not  TLS
> (T-P identifies the next layer)
> 
> and that it be the same token(s) whether or not the next layer is TLS.  
> E.g. explicity NOT 2 versions of an ALPN token one of which indicates
> the presence of TLS and one not.
> 
> So I can't see how the same ALPN token can distinguish that the next
> layer is TLS or not unless it must always be TLS, in which case you're
> at pains to avoid saying so and my question would then be why?
> 
> My personal opinion is that TLS is as much a protocol as anything else
> and if the next layer in a tunnel is TLS, then it's just an error to not
> say so or to say it's something else.  It just breaks the basic layering
> that the internet is based on.
> 
> This is what Amos was referring to I believe when he suggested
> indicating TLS and then using TLS ALPN for the next layer after that.

Yes.

Amos

Received on Friday, 27 March 2015 00:52:41 UTC