Subject: Re: [TLS] Confirming consensus for ALPN

From: =JeffH <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 22:12:35 -0700

AGL replied..
 >
 > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Hill, Brad <[email-masked]> wrote:
 >
 >> If we start over with ALPN, it will take years for the “supply chain” to get
 >> us back to the point of viability that NPN is at today.
 >
 > Note that the existing NPN wasn't what I was advocating: the NPN draft
 > differs from the current code.

Ok, but it's not clear from the above what you were advocating -- 
draft-agl-tls-nextprotoneg-04 or "current code" ?

 > The NextProtocol message changed into
 > an EncryptedExtensions message for one in order to be more general
 > etc.

Was the aforementioned transformation in the currently shipping code (eg Chrome 
Version 25 or thereabouts) or in draft-agl-tls-nextprotoneg-04 ?

thanks,

=JeffH

---

From: Adam Langley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 07:38:29 -0400

> draft-agl-tls-nextprotoneg-04 or "current code" ?

I was advocating draft-agl-tls-nextprotoneg-04

> Was the aforementioned transformation in the currently shipping code (eg
> Chrome Version 25 or thereabouts) or in draft-agl-tls-nextprotoneg-04 ?

The latter. The currently shipping code was always going to change, if
nothing else because of a change of extension number.

Cheers

AGL

--
Adam Langley [email-masked] http://www.imperialviolet.org