Re: [TLS] Call for acceptance of draft-moeller-tls-downgrade-scsv

[Michael D'Errico <[e-mail]>]

-1

We should consider whether we can define a single SCSV that a
client issues when it thinks a server is extension intolerant.

Such an SCSV could be used in conjunction with a normal extension
used for downgrade protection, if the client gets pushed all the
way back to TLSv1.0 without extensions, or to SSLv3.

This approach could solve the problem of desiring more SCSVs in
the future.

Mike



Eric Rescorla wrote:
> WG Members,
> 
> This message is a call for acceptance of
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bmoeller-tls-downgrade-scsv-01
> 
> As a TLS WG item.
> 
> Please provide any comments on this action by Feb 7. Because
> there has been only modest discussion of this document, the
> chairs ask people who have already spoken in favor or against
> this document to re-register their opinion (feel free to just say
> +1 or -1 and point back to the archives.)
> 
> -Ekr
> [For the chairs]