Re: [TLS] "Draft Version" extension

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Mon, 11 August 2014 17:27 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACsn0ck7KKcRYJfCeXJkKD_bp=j5X3EPyw6MNKb94ywK8sYUsA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABcZeBN_Pi+6Bythe98VaVL09afZzdM8rB8weEZUkzmpk5nmmA@mail.gmail.com> <CACsn0ck7KKcRYJfCeXJkKD_bp=j5X3EPyw6MNKb94ywK8sYUsA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 10:26:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBO4iLjJ3kibAK3SFCRgggN1Ca9JdCR_3i4ROXr+v64W9g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c26aceddbe1105005ddc75"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/hsEvAGJ3cS-Z2J2A2T6oBOqjHT4
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] "Draft Version" extension
Precedence: list

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Aug 11, 2014 9:55 AM, "Eric Rescorla" <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> >
> > Experience with HTTP 2 has shown that it's convenient to be able to
> > distinguish which draft version you're implementing so you don't end
> > worrying about interop between various I-D versions. Accordingly,
> > for TLS 1.3 I'd like to define a temporary extension that indicates which
> > TLS 1.3 draft it implements. The idea here is that the client would
> signal
> > TLS 1.3 and then "draft 3" and the server would only negotiate 1.3 if
> > it had a compatible draft. Otherwise it would fall back to TLS 1.2.
>
> How would the server negotiate v2 vs v3?
>

You negotiate TLS 1.2 versus TLS 1.3 via the usual mechanism, I.e., the
version
in the ClientHello.

-Ekr

Re: [TLS] "Draft Version" extension Watson Ladd
[TLS] "Draft Version" extension Eric Rescorla
Re: [TLS] "Draft Version" extension Eric Rescorla
Re: [TLS] "Draft Version" extension Alexey Melnikov