On 2019-09-13 15:25, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
Would we agree that the correct error response to any TLS handshake omission simply be a 400 error, and not an error that indicates some authnz configuration trouble? Does that make it more obvious that the error log needs to be inspected at info, or debug level? A 426 response would seem to be appropriate for TLS 1.0/1.1 but it doesn't have the granularity to ask that a legit TLS 1.2 connection missing SNI needs to upgrade. Seems 400 might be best.
I think this is a great idea and compromise. --- Tom
