Re: [hybi] Formal declaration of consensus: HTTP Compliance

just as clarification:

the declaration of consensus does not exclude TLS-nextprotoneg 
alternative, indeed the declaration states:

    "-/ The WG's focus is on leveraging existing HTTP-based
    infrastructure, although a future rechartering could
    investigate other alternatives./"

however a TLS handshake based on draft-agl-tls-nextprotoneg-00 at moment 
does not seem a reasonable one
for the next 4weeks plan neither so straightforward for the 6months plan.

However, I want encourage all the people that find value on 
TLS-nextprotoneg to discuss it in the TLS wg,
and also write down a draft on its usage as alternative handshake for 
WebSocket and submit it.

/Sal

On 8/6/10 7:05 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Alexey Melnikov
> <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>  wrote:
>    
>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>      
>>> On Aug 6, 2010, at 1:24 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
>>>        
>>>> On Fri Aug  6 09:11:43 2010, Adam Barth wrote:
>>>>          
>>>>> Also, the main advocates for a TLS+NPN based handshake (Maciej and
>>>>> myself) weren't present at the face-to-face meeting.  I don't see that
>>>>> we've reached a rough consensus on this point at all.  I'm certainly
>>>>> not as experienced in IETF process as Salvatore, but we seem to be
>>>>> jumping the gun here.
>>>>>            
>>>> As I recall, EKR made the point that TLS+NPN has yet to go through the
>>>> standards process, so would be problematic from that standpoint.
>>>>
>>>> It's not that anyone's arguing that it should be discarded, it's more
>>>> that for the foreseeable, we should concentrate on an HTTP Upgrade based
>>>> solution.
>>>>          
>>> If the requirements document is to be taken seriously, and the change the
>>> Chairs requested is made, then it would require that we discard the TLS+NPN
>>> solution since it doesn't involve an exchange of Upgrade headers at all.
>>> Indeed, this argument has been cited repeatedly as a reason the requirements
>>> document to not be too specific about the details.
>>>
>>> Personally, I think this declaration of consensus is premature. Clearly a
>>> number of people disagree with the alleged consensus, and I believe we have
>>> serious technical reasons for this and are not just cranks. The statement
>>> from the chairs does not address these arguments at all.
>>>        
>> If people want to do TLS+NPN, then NPN should be sent to TLS WG for review
>> now[ish]. As other people pointed out, this might take a few months (with no
>> guaranty of positive feedback from the TLS WG). But of course this shouldn't
>> stop interested parties from progressing NPN document toward being an RFC.
>>      
> I'll talk with Adam Langley about doing that.  I think NPN has value
> beyond WebSockets, so it's worth putting through the standards process
> even if we eventually decide to go another route with WebSockets.
>
> Adam
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>    

-- 
Salvatore Loreto
www.sloreto.com