On 09/14/2016 04:56 AM, Hubert Kario wrote: > First, I don't think that the argument that the current version scheme > doesn't > lend itself to future-proofing is correct. Just as with GREASE, browsers can > send much higher version than they really support if they do that on a time > limited basis.
David had previously convinced me that it doesn't actually work very well, but I forget the reasoning he used to do so. :( > Second, while the "joint" which handles new extensions IDs doesn't seem to be > rusting, it's not the case with lists in particular extensions. SNI being the > prime example where sending anything but a single host name value will most > likely lead to your client hello being either misinterpreted or rejected. > But people will ~always be sending multiple elements in the list in the version-negotiation extension -- you can't just send TLS 1.3; you also send 1.2 for the near future. And if browsers are grease-ing from the beginning, I don't really see this one rusting. -Ben
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
