On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 11:52:50AM -0700, Nick Harper wrote:
> > Since the likelihood of actually adding exotic ALPN values to the
> > registry appears slim, why not say so. That would leave the exotic
> > values for private on-the-wire use, while allowing DNS and other
> > configuration serialisation forms to avail themselves of more
> > straight-forward parsers.
>
> Encoding ALPN identifiers in hex for these configuration files sounds like
> a very straightforward way to support all valid ALPN identifiers. We
> already have "exotic" ALPN identifiers in the registry (for GREASE). Any
> new scheme that handles ALPN should be designed to handle all possible
> values. Not doing so will lead to interoperability issues that others have
> already mentioned.
I agree it is a straight-forwarding encoding for machines, and it is
well suited for the GREASE code points.
But, it makes for a fairly terrible user interface for the human
operator. Compare:
* managesieve
* 6d616e6167657369657665
Typos in hex values are easy to make and hard to recognise.
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
