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

[David-Sarah Hopwood <david-sarah at jacaranda.org>]

Martin Rex wrote:
> 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.

I didn't say it was. What I did say, was correct and sufficient for
the point at hand.

-- 
David-Sarah Hopwood  ⚥  http://davidsarah.livejournal.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature