On 13/02/17 16:55, Salz, Rich wrote: >> extension by default that wasn't there before - and that we've already >> decided to add new extensions in 1.1.1 due to the forthcoming >> TLSv1.3 support. > > You mean adding new extensions in the wire protocol? Or are did we modify > any API/ABI behavior?
Wire protocol. We haven't modified API/ABI behaviour (except to add new APIs). > >> On the other hand you could argue that this could break >> existing scripts that rely on the current SNI behaviour. > > I would support adding a new -sni flag that is shorter, easier to type, and > uses the value of the HOST field. Which doesn't really solve the problem I was seeking to address. > > Within the team, we previously had agreement that the CLI was part of the ABI > "contract." Waiting for Viktor to weigh in here :) > I'm all in favour of a stable command line interface. What I think is unclear is where the line is drawn between what is and isn't allowed. I'm also waiting for Viktor :-) Matt -- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
