Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiation

[[e-mail] (Martin Rex)]

Peter Gutmann wrote:
> Thomas Pornin <[e-mail]> writes:
>> 
>>TLS 1.3 is moving away from the IoT/embedded world, and more toward a Web
>>world. This is not necessarily _bad_, but it is likely to leave some people
>>unsatisfied (and, in practice, people clinging to TLS 1.2).
> 
> I would go slightly further and say that TLS 1.3 could end up forking TLS in
> the same way that HTTP/2 has forked HTTP.  There's HTTP/2 for web content
> providers and HTTP 1.1 for the rest of us/them (depending on your point of
> view).  Similarly, there are sizeable groups of users who will take a decade
> or more to get to TLS 1.3 (they're still years away from 1.2 at the moment),
> or who may never move to TLS 1.3 because too much of their existing
> infrastructure is dependent on how TLS 1.x, x = 0...2, works.  So as with
> HTTP/2 we may end up with TLS 1.3 for web content providers and TLS 1.0/1.2
> for everything else.

I expect TLSv1.3 is going to be in a decade where IPv6 is today.

Not supporting IPv4 is a non-starter, because you can not reach
95% of the internet, and not even get internet connectivity in a
lot of places.

Not supporting IPv6 is paradise: less code, less headaches, less
interop problems, less security issues, and you will _not_ miss anything
at all, because everything that is at least remotely interesing,
is accessible via IPv4.

-Martin