Re: [TLS] consensus on backwards compatibility changes

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

Based on reading the mailing list, it seems to me that there is rough
consensus
on PR#105, but not (yet?) on PR#107.

Chairs,
I'd like to merge PR#105. Do you agree that there is consensus? If so,
I will merge.

Can you please advise on how you would like to proceed on PR#107?

-Ekr




On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 2:03 AM, Dave Garrett <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Per Brian's suggestion, I've split the topic of full prohibition of SSL v2
> CLIENT-HELLO usage into its own issue, as there is clearly no consensus on
> this
> yet. It would be really nice if some real-world stats on how much this is
> actually used could be provided. (I think continued acceptance of it is
> illegitimate, but hard data is harder to argue with)
>
> Issue #113 Prohibit SSL v2 CLIENT-HELLO entirely
> https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/issues/113
>
> I have heard notable support for this, including Eric, but I do concede
> there
> might be too much desire for infinite backwards compatibility to reach
> consensus.
> I'm still hopeful we can come to an agreement that two decades is a
> sufficient
> deprecation period. :/
>
> I have two PRs for the backwards compatibility section.
>
> The first has all SSL backwards compatibility changes. In addition to RFC
> 6176
> SSL 2 language, I've added SSL 3 negotiation prohibition as per Martin's
> suggestion (based on the current I-D). The v2 hello documentation is cut
> out,
> but seeing as it's only valid for prior versions, prior RFCs can be
> referenced
> if needed.
>
> PR #105 remove SSL 2 backwards compatibility section & prohibit SSL
> negotiation
> https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/pull/105
>
> The second PR has more general backwards compatibility section
> improvements,
> prohibition of RC4 (also based on its current I-D), and Brian's ClientHello
> version freeze proposal. Currently, I have the ClientHello version listed
> as a
> "MUST", but I leave for the possibility that a "SHOULD" might be
> appropriate if
> other tactics for dealing with buggy servers should continue to be
> permitted.
> Feedback from Microsoft, Oracle, or anyone else implementing alternate
> workarounds here would be greatly appreciated.
>
> PR #107 revise backwards compatibility & fix ClientHello version
> https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/pull/107
>
> Note that the SSL3 & RC4 language based on current drafts is of course
> contingent on those being passed successfully, though this is generally
> expected.
>
> Both PRs update the Informative References as needed, which I've hopefully
> done
> correctly.
>
>
> Dave
>