On 6/5/2015 11:16 PM, Simone Bordet wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Xuelei Fan <xuelei....@oracle.com> wrote: >> If H2 is not supported, SPDY/3.1 would be attempted, of SPDY/3.1 is not >> supported HTTP/1.1 would be attempted. > > Correct. > >> If H2 is supported in both side, >> but H2 does not work, it is a H2 problem that need to be addressed in H2 >> layer. > > If both client and server have "h2" as a potentially supported > protocol, but the cipher to use h2 is not valid, then h2 is not > supported for that particular connection. > At that point, like you said above, spdy/3.1 is attempted, and so on. > ;-) That's the point we cannot agree with each other at present.
>> No application protocol fallback in TLS layer if the application >> protocol is supported. > > Your interpretation of "supported" is not what browser and server > implementors mean :) > ;-) maybe. It's not my expertise. >> I understand your concerns now. I think we have different understanding >> of the ALPN protocols. It's a good thing to understand the actually >> requirements of the industry, I think. Thank you! > > So where does this leave us know ? > ;-) I think Brad would consider our information for his design. > By the way, while I have participated in the RFC 7540 discussions, and > implemented HTTP/2 in Jetty to be interoperable with a variety of > other clients and servers, feel free to ask clarifications to the RFC > 7540 and RFC 7301 mailing lists, or even directly to the editors of > those RFCs; they are typically open to answer questions, I guess > especially so if they come from the OpenJDK team that is implementing > those specification. > Yes. It would be help to know the implementation of other SSL/TLS vendors, too. Thanks, Xuelei
