TLS ALPN Proposal v2

[Xuelei Fan]

On 6/5/2015 11:16 PM, Simone Bordet wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Xuelei Fan <xuelei.fan at oracle.com> wrote:
>> If H2 is not supported, SPDY/3.1 would be attempted, of SPDY/3.1 is not
>> supported HTTP/1.1 would be attempted.
> 
> Correct.
> 
>> If H2 is supported in both side,
>> but H2 does not work, it is a H2 problem that need to be addressed in H2
>> layer.
> 
> If both client and server have "h2" as a potentially supported
> protocol, but the cipher to use h2 is not valid, then h2 is not
> supported for that particular connection.
> At that point, like you said above, spdy/3.1 is attempted, and so on.
> 
;-) That's the point we cannot agree with each other at present.

>> No application protocol fallback in TLS layer if the application
>> protocol is supported.
> 
> Your interpretation of "supported" is not what browser and server
> implementors mean :)
> 
;-) maybe. It's not my expertise.

>> I understand your concerns now.  I think we have different understanding
>> of the ALPN protocols.  It's a good thing to understand the actually
>> requirements of the industry, I think.  Thank you!
> 
> So where does this leave us know ?
> 
;-) I think Brad would consider our information for his design.

> By the way, while I have participated in the RFC 7540 discussions, and
> implemented HTTP/2 in Jetty to be interoperable with a variety of
> other clients and servers, feel free to ask clarifications to the RFC
> 7540 and RFC 7301 mailing lists, or even directly to the editors of
> those RFCs; they are typically open to answer questions, I guess
> especially so if they come from the OpenJDK team that is implementing
> those specification.
> 
Yes.

It would be help to know the implementation of other SSL/TLS vendors, too.

Thanks,
Xuelei