Dave Garrett <davemgarr...@gmail.com> writes: >Also, as with any new system, we now have the ability to loudly stress to TLS >1.3+ implementers to not screw it up and test for future-proofing this time >around.
I think that's the main contribution of a new mechanism, it doesn't really matter whether it's communicated as a single value, a list, or interpretive dance, the main thing is that there needs to be a single location where the version is given (not multiple locations that can disagree with each other as for TLS < 1.3), and the spec should include a pseudocode algorithm for dealing with the version data rather than just "implementations should accept things that look about right". Peter. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
