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

[Martin Rex <mrex at sap.com>]

David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
> 
> >> because the server needs to be patched in order for a renegotiating
> >> handshake to succeed. If it is patched, then it is TLS- and
> >> extension-tolerant.
> > 
> > That may be(come) true,
> 
> It is true by definition, since a TLS- or extension-intolerant server
> wouldn't conform to the spec for the patch.

Mind you, extension-tolerant isn't sufficient for TLS extension RI.

MSIE8 on Windows2008 will send 4 extension already, and
TLS extension RI would be the 5th.  So you need to make sure
that you code can weed out the TLS extension RI from anywhere
within the extensions list when you're newly adding it to
a codeline that doesn't have TLS extensions support yet,
in order to be interoperable.


Asking SSLv3 implementations to improve on their extensions-intolerance
is still OK.  Requiring them to implement generic TLS extensions
is not, because it has nothing to do with the problem and is
an unnecessary complexity for the fix.


-Martin