Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Brian Smith wrote:
>
>> Ilari Liusvaara wrote:
>>
>>> Omitting TLS 1.2 causes failures in some downnegotiation cases (when
>>> there
>>> are higher versions supported, but not overlapping).
>>>
>>
>> Could you provide a concrete example, please?
>>
>
> When I support TLS
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Brian Smith wrote:
> Ilari Liusvaara wrote:
>
>> Omitting TLS 1.2 causes failures in some downnegotiation cases (when there
>> are higher versions supported, but not overlapping).
>>
>
> Could you provide a concrete example, please?
>
When I support TLS 1.2 and
Ilari Liusvaara wrote:
> Omitting TLS 1.2 causes failures in some downnegotiation cases (when there
> are higher versions supported, but not overlapping).
>
Could you provide a concrete example, please?
Thanks,
Brian
--
https://briansmith.org/
___
TLS
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:25:07AM -1000, Brian Smith wrote:
> Hubert Kario wrote:
>
> > Currently the description of the extension states that only TLS versions
> > can
> > be listed in the extension and all unknown versions must be ignored.
> >
> > I wonder if making it explicit that {3, 0} and
Hubert Kario wrote:
> Currently the description of the extension states that only TLS versions
> can
> be listed in the extension and all unknown versions must be ignored.
>
> I wonder if making it explicit that {3, 0} and any lower values MUST NOT be
> advertised wouldn't be a good idea, if only
Currently the description of the extension states that only TLS versions can
be listed in the extension and all unknown versions must be ignored.
I wonder if making it explicit that {3, 0} and any lower values MUST NOT be
advertised wouldn't be a good idea, if only to hammer it that SSL3 must no
