Re: [TLS] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tls-downgrade-scsv-03.txt> (TLS Fallback Signaling Cipher Suite Value (SCSV) for Preventing Protocol Downgrade Attacks) to Proposed Standard

[Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
> From my read, it seems in the time frame of current mitigations (SVSC in
> the field or Nikos's "Supported Versions Extension" as a more elegant
> forwards and backwards compatible version signalling mechanism). Nikos
> was pushing on { 3, 0 } for a current lower bound (at the record layer)
> for TLSv1.0 through TLSv1.2 as { 3, 1 } at the record layer in the
> current time-frame *allegedly* causes dancing for a few remaining
> upgrade recalcitrant servers. i.e. causing problems in the wild. This
> was my read.
> So the decision remains whether { 3, 0 } or { 3, 1 } is the "record
> layer" lower bound in TLSv1.3;

Note that I was not pushing for anything. I merely presented my interpretation 
of what the record version numbers mean. As it is now, using { 3, 0 } in the
record version causes connections to fail to several web sites (see Martin's mail
on 'ClientHello and record layer version interop'), so it's not much of an
option.

regards,
Nikos