On Monday, November 9, 2015 4:44 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Christian Huitema <huit...@microsoft.com> > wrote: >> On Monday, November 9, 2015 4:34 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Christian Huitema <huit...@microsoft.com> >>> wrote: >... >>>> Could you also add a reference to the document that specifies using 44 4F >>>> 57 4E 47 52 >>>> 44 00 by "TLS 1.2 servers which are negotiating TLS 1.1 or below" ? >>> >>> We don't have one. Wasn't totally sure how to handle that. >> >> I suspected that. Spent sometimes looking for text in published RFC, >> could not find it. I suspect that many readers will fall in the same trap >> and lose some time. Could you add text explaining that this is an >> undocumented feature of some implementations, and that we are >> recommending its use? Or something to that effect... > > Worse, we just invented it. What about if I say "TLS 1.2 servers SHOULD..."
That would be better. There is however a question of "is this the right document." This is the spec for TLS 1.3 servers, so implementers of TLS 1.2 servers may or may not read it. This document "obsoletes 5246," so cannot really update it. Let see what you come up with... -- Christian Huitema _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
