Re: [TLS] Proposal for hybrid solution using most of the ideas

[Michael D'Errico <mike-list at pobox.com>]

David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
> No. Servers have to be TLS-tolerant (which later SSLv3 drafts already
> required) and to handle one extension; not to support TLS.

When I send extensions, I send server_name, signature_algorithms, and
possibly others.  Saying that a server only has to support one extension
is going to cause trouble.

> There's nothing particularly difficult about adding support for one
> extension to an SSLv3 server. The extensions spec does not make any
> assumptions that hold only for TLS and not SSLv3.

There are likely ZERO SSLv3 servers that support extensions, so you're
asking them all to implement them.  That is unreasonable when an
alternative exists that doesn't require extensions.

Mike