On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 21:56, David Benjamin wrote:
>
> Hi TLS and HTTP friends,
>
> At the last HTTPWG interim, there was a question of why one would want
> something like ALPS (draft-vvv-tls-alps) for HTTP SETTINGS
> (draft-vvv-httpbis-alps) over TLS 1.3 half-RTT data. I know we've also had
>
d idea, I think it's a
good one! It clearly brings benefits for protocols that can require
its presence. If we want to mint a new ALPN token for HTTP/2 that also
mandates ALPS support I'm open to that, but frankly without it I don't
see that ALPS helps us much for HTTP/2.
>
On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 10:16, Cory Benfield wrote:
>
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 at 03:44, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
> >
> > Hi Cory,
> >
> > I am not sure there is a big difference between ALPN and ALPS in that
> > regard. ALPS is (or at least can be implemented
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 at 23:38, David Benjamin wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
> Thanks all for the feedback. I’ve tried to address it below, but there's a
> lot of text, so please let me know if I’ve missed or misunderstood any of
> your points.
>
>
> Cory commented on SETTINGS_[HQ]PACK_ENABLE_STATIC_TABL
hat we can accurately assess whether ALPS is the right
solution for them.
ALPS is a good solution to some real problems. I want to make sure I
understand what problems it's solving in H2, so I can try to judge
whether I think it's a good solution for _those_ problems.
On Mon, 1 Feb
On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 at 19:49, David Benjamin wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 8:46 AM Cory Benfield wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 at 23:38, David Benjamin wrote:
>> > To clarify, are you unconvinced that ALPS is easier than leaving H2 alone,
>> > or t
