I don't think that this is an appropriate way to request the addition of ALPN labels. If it is important to register ALPN labels for these protocols, then the HTTP working group can produce a short document defining them.
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 4:24 PM, RFC Errata System <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7301, > "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation > Extension". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5176 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Ilya Grigorik <igrigo...@gmail.com> > > Section: 6 > > Original Text > ------------- > IANA Considerations > > Corrected Text > -------------- > +Protocol: HTTP/1.0 > +Protocol: HTTP/0.9 > > Notes > ----- > RFC does not register ALPN identifiers for http/0.9 or http/1.0. > > Instructions: > ------------- > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC7301 (draft-ietf-tls-applayerprotoneg-05) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer > Protocol Negotiation Extension > Publication Date : July 2014 > Author(s) : S. Friedl, A. Popov, A. Langley, E. Stephan > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Transport Layer Security > Area : Security > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
