Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email protected]>:
> Section 3.1.3 "Fallback to Lower Versions" is unclear: Does it apply
>> to the standard, "secure," type of version rollback that is protected
>> by the TLS handshake, or does it apply to the non-secure fallback that
>> the TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV is designed to protect.
>
>
> Speaking only for myself, I don't think the authors differentiated between
> *how* you might get to TLS 1.0 or SSLv3 - only that you end up there at all.
>
> In any case TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV is probably too new for us to recommend it
> as a best *current* practice.
Not that I'd necessarily disagree with that conclusion, but disabling SSL
3.0 entirely everywhere is much newer than the SCSV :-)
You might want to consider a non-normative reference to the
TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV draft (so that implementors will look at its current
status).
My main complaint with the content of this section of
draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp-06, though, is that "fallback" should be spelt "fall
back" when used as a verb. The one-word form ("fallback") is correct for
the noun.
Bodo
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
