Re: [TLS] COMMENT: draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation

[Martin Rex <[e-mail]>]

Martin Rex wrote:
> 
> To me, the effectively usable protocol version negotiation in TLS
> (as inherited from SSLv3) for the installed base is a mess.
> If they had used a set (like its done with the cipher_suites and
> compression_methods), then the nursing problems would probably
> be gone by now.  Another drawback from the exitisting version
> negotiation is that implementations de-facto have to implement
> all protocol versions, and given budget constraints of todays
> world, TLSv1.0 is likely the protocol with the highest
> return-of-investment.

Actually, that is likely incorrect
SSLv3 is probably still the protocol with the higest return-of-investment.

Up to this day, SSLv3 is the _only_ protocol version that will
provide almost universal interoperability.

There are several hundred million SSL clients out there, which,
although capable of extension-less TLSv1.0, have this disabled.

That platform is known as Windows XP, and it was sold well into
2009 with brand new hardware of the Netbook type (160 GB disk, 1GB Ram),
and that was actually the fastest growing PC market segment.

But it isn't any different for Windows 2003 / Windows XP 64-bit,

>From the 5 PCs I use (2 at work, 3 at home), 4 are WindowsXPsp3
and one is WindowsXPpro 64-bit.

And I use the original MSIE for Online Banking with active
content (javascript) enabled, while I use Firefox with active
content disabled for web browsing.  My family still uses MSIE only.


Businesses simply can not afford to _not_ support SSLv3 today.
Maybe in a few years.  But not now.  

-Martin