Subject: The ALPN Header Field

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 16:48:24 -0700

Discussion during last call of the tunnel-protocol draft identified
the naming issue.

Given time for reflection, are people comfortable renaming the header
field to "ALPN"?

I opened a pull request on this:
https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/63

---

From: Amos Jeffries <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 15:08:41 +1200

> https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/63

Yes.

Amos

---

From: Willy Tarreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 07:05:40 +0200

> > https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/63

Fine for me as well, thanks Martin!

Willy

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 16:16:04 -0700

Martin, it looks like we have consensus on doing that. Can you please spin another draft so we can have a brief look before going to IETF LC?

Cheers,

> On 15 Apr 2015, at 4:48 pm, Martin Thomson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 18:35:04 -0700

> Martin, it looks like we have consensus on doing that. Can you please spin another draft so we can have a brief look before going to IETF LC?

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-tunnel-protocol/