On 20/07/2016 12:01, Hanno Böck wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 11:20:46 +0200 > Hubert Kario <[email protected]> wrote: > >> so it looks to me like while we may gain a bit of compatibility by >> using extension based mechanism to indicate TLSv1.3, > > Just quick: This was discussed yesterday, David Benjamin had an > interesting proposal, but it was largely met with resistance. So from > the WG discussion yesterday I had the impression that we will most > likely stay with the existing clienthello version mechanism. While that > will cause us more trouble, it's probably the cleaner option anyway. So > we definitely should continue investigating version intolerance and > tell people to fix their stuff. > > I'm now also collecting some data and have some preliminary > suspicion on affected devices. My numbers roughly match yours that we > are in the more or less 3% area of 1.3 intolerance.
FYI: I am seeing TLS 1.3 intolerance at 3.2% in the most recent SSL Pulse scan (July 2016). I'll propose that a chart is added to the SSL Pulse monthly report so that we can track the percentage it in the following months. > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls > _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
