qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alan Conway <acon...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Proposal to unify qpid and AMQP URL formats.
Date Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:09:01 GMT
Aidan Skinner wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Alan Conway <aconway@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> Does anyone care to jot down what an SSL amqp URL should look like? Would it
>> be  ssl:host:port or tcp+ssl:host:port or tcp+tls ... I'm not well up on the
>> ins and outs here.
> 
> amqps:// and fail if it can't negotiate ssl?
> 

The question is, should SSL be a separate protocol or a separate URL scheme, i.e.:
  amqps://tcp:myhost:1234 ; ssl as URL scheme
  amqp://ssl:myhost:1234 ; ssl as protocol
(other candidates for the protocol tag might be tls, tcp+tls, tcp+ssl...)

Assuming we eventually want to support sctp, infiniband and other protocols what 
does it mean to say amqps://sctp:... or amqps://ib:...? Do we try to 
re-interpret the "s" in "amqps" to be meaningful for every protocol supported, 
or make it illegal to mix amqps: with non-TCP protcols? Making SSL a separate 
protocol rather than a separate URL scheme avoids these questions.

I'm on the fence for now, any other opinions?

Mime
View raw message