Alan DeKok <al...@deployingradius.com> wrote:
> ALPN would be much simpler, I think. The downside there is that
> every time you rev the protocol, you have to register a new ALPN name.
> That's annoying. I don't know if it would be acceptable to register an
> ALPN _prefix_, and then just self-allocate versions.But, revising the protocol involves a new RFC, so I don't see the logistical problem of registering a new ALPN. Maybe it's annoying during development to have to stick a new value in and not know what it's going to be? -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
