Understood, I'll start working on this behavior:
The client can send ALPN, NPN, or both.
If the client only sends one: negotiation will take place normally.
If the client sends both: the server will prefer ALPN. If nothing
matches with ALPN, it will fall back to NPN and send its list.
On 24 June 2013 22:00, Jeff Mendoza (MS OPEN TECH)
jemen...@microsoft.com wrote:
We simply cannot drop support for NPN (i.e. SPDY) just to add support
for ALPN.
The idea is to have the choice as a ./config option. The default will
stay as NPN, as to not disrupt anyone. I don't have this
Hi All,
Yes, supporting both at runtime would be best. But having a compile-time
option now, and defaulting to NPN should keep this from being a blocking
issue with the patch, correct?
It would also make it kind of useless, at least from my non-authoritative
point of view.
Understood,
We simply cannot drop support for NPN (i.e. SPDY) just to add support
for ALPN.
The idea is to have the choice as a ./config option. The default will
stay as NPN, as to not disrupt anyone. I don't have this in the patch yet.
That doesn't make any sense. How would a server serve both
On 21 June 2013 02:29, Thor Lancelot Simon t...@panix.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 09:30:32PM +, Jeff Mendoza (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
Yeah, my point was that in the perfect world, you'd support both at
runtime (at least on the server-side) and either ALPN or NPN could be
used. I
: Thursday, June 20, 2013 10:41 AM
To: openssl-dev@openssl.org
Subject: Re: [Patch] ALPN Implementation for OpenSSL
We simply cannot drop support for NPN (i.e. SPDY) just to add support
for
ALPN.
The idea is to have the choice as a ./config option. The default will
stay as NPN
Hi,
I realize it has only been a few days since we originally posted this patch for
Application Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) support. I just wanted to expand
on why we think this is an important patch for OpenSSL.
The latest HTTP/2.0 draft specifies support for a TLS extension called ALPN
Hi,
We really want to work with you to get this patch into OpenSSL to help
developers of HTTP/2.0 draft implementations. We welcome your assistance to
review this patch.
What really makes this patch unusable (at least for us) is this snippet:
+#if !defined(OPENSSL_NO_NEXTPROTONEG)
-Original Message-
From: owner-openssl-...@openssl.org [mailto:owner-openssl-...@openssl.org]
On Behalf Of Piotr Sikora
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 10:41 AM
To: openssl-dev@openssl.org
Subject: Re: [Patch] ALPN Implementation for OpenSSL
We simply cannot drop support for NPN
Hey Jeff,
The idea is to have the choice as a ./config option. The default will stay as
NPN, as to not disrupt anyone. I don't have this in the patch yet.
Yeah, my point was that in the perfect world, you'd support both at
runtime (at least on the server-side) and either ALPN or NPN could be
Yeah, my point was that in the perfect world, you'd support both at
runtime (at least on the server-side) and either ALPN or NPN could be
used. I want to have a library that supports both, not either-or.
Yes, supporting both at runtime would be best. But having a compile-time option
now, and
Hey,
Yes, supporting both at runtime would be best. But having a compile-time
option now, and defaulting to NPN should keep this from being a blocking
issue with the patch, correct?
It would also make it kind of useless, at least from my
non-authoritative point of view.
Best regards,
Piotr
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 09:30:32PM +, Jeff Mendoza (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
Yeah, my point was that in the perfect world, you'd support both at
runtime (at least on the server-side) and either ALPN or NPN could be
used. I want to have a library that supports both, not either-or.
Yes,
: [Patch] ALPN Implementation for OpenSSL
We simply cannot drop support for NPN (i.e. SPDY) just to add support for
ALPN.
The idea is to have the choice as a ./config option. The default will stay as
NPN, as to not disrupt anyone. I don't have this in the patch yet.
That doesn't make any sense
Hi,
Attached the Patch for the OpenSSL with ALPN implementation.
-Original Message-
From: Parashuram Narasimhan (MS OPEN TECH)
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 5:57 AM
To: 'openssl-dev@openssl.org'
Subject: [Patch] ALPN Implementation for OpenSSL
Hi,
I work for Microsoft Open
15 matches
Mail list logo
