Re: [TLS] Accept draft-turner-ssl-must-not-02 as WG item

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

At 3:55 AM +0200 9/15/10, Martin Rex wrote:
> > Unless anybody else objects I'll make the following swap:
>>
>> OLD:
>>
>> o TLS servers MUST NOT accept SSL 2.0 ClientHello messages.
>>
>> NEW:
>>
>> o TLS servers SHOULD NOT accept SSL 2.0 ClientHello messages.
>
>A "SHOULD NOT" without a rationale appears not compliant with rfc-2119

I get a chance to agree with Martin!

>Personally I can not think of a reason to move away from what
>rfc-5246 appendix E.2 says.  AFAIK, the problem is strictly limited to
>negotiating and talking SSLv2.  Accepting an SSL v2.0 CLIENT-HELLO
>as the first message of an SSLv3 or TLSv1.x handshake precludes
>the sending of TLS extensions and negotiating a compression alg,
>but does not seem to cause any harm otherwise.
>
>I would appreciate if the original wording of rfc-5246 Appendix E.2
>would be retained absent a convincing rationale to change it.
>
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5246#page-89
>
>   However, even TLS servers that do not support SSL 2.0 MAY accept
>   version 2.0 CLIENT-HELLO messages.

Sounds good to me.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium