Re: [TLS] Open issue: Record Version Numbers

[Bodo Moeller <bmoeller@xxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 04:26:15PM +0300, Pasi.Eronen@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Thanks for your comments. I agree about the first change;
> the second change I would reword slightly...

>>    TLS versions 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2, and SSL 3.0 are very similar, and
>>    use compatible ClientHello messages; thus, supporting all of them
>>    is relatively easy.  Similarly, servers can easily handle clients
>>    trying to use future versions of TLS as long as the clients still
>>    support the highest protocol version available in the server.

> This assumes the ClientHello format remains the same;

This is true, but intentional.  If the ClientHello format is ever
changed in an incompatible way such that existing servers cannot
handle it, then a client using this new format cannot support the
highest protocol version available in such servers.  (Unless they use
some kind of future backwards-compatible ClientHello, in which case
servers *can* easily handle such clients, after all.)  Well, and if a
client cannot support the highest protocol version available in the
server, then the above "as long as"-clause does not pretend to apply.

But I guess it still can't hurt to mention the format compatibility
requirement, and use your proposed wording:

>                                                       perhaps this
> is worth mentioning explicitly:
> 
>     TLS versions 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2, and SSL 3.0 are very similar, and
>     use compatible ClientHello messages; thus, supporting all of them
>     is relatively easy.  Similarly, servers can easily handle clients
>     trying to use future versions of TLS as long as the ClientHello
>     format remains compatible, and the client support the highest
>     protocol version available in the server.

Bodo


_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls