Re: [TLS] Analysis of Interop scenarios TLS extension RI w/MCSV

David-Sarah Hopwood <david-sarah@jacaranda.org> wrote:

> Michael Gray wrote:
> > I see two use cases here;
> >
> > A. Existing implementations that send extensions today and are
therefore
> > are fine to add this additional extension.  Note: this means they are
> > already sending extensions, not just extension capable.  By applying
this
> > fix nothing changes with the protocol being used.
> >
> > B. Existing implementations that do not send any extensions today and
as
> > such they must not change the protocol due to this fix, which means
they
> > can only safely use the MCSV as the signaling method.
> >
> > It seems to me that we simply need the appropriate wording to allow
> > implementers to decide the best strategy that needs to adopted based on
> > risk factors to deployed production environments rather than mandate A
> > which will break some production environments or mandate B which means
that
> > extension using systems must use the CipherSuite method.
>
> What is the disadvantage of extension-using systems having to use the
> CipherSuite method? I've heard only vague aesthetic objections so far;
> nothing concerned with more substantive factors such as code complexity,
> security, or interoperability.

Yes, I do not believe a technical objection to the CipherSuite method has
been presented, but rather it seems to me to be a question of technical
preference.

- Mick

> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls