Subject: [ietf-tls] Re: London

From: "Joseph Hui" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 09:40:49 -0700

>From: Bodo Moeller [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Maybe now it's a good time to bring up an issue of compatibility
>> that may cause grief during the dns_name roll-out: 
>> 
>>    dsn_name-server     : dns_name-browser,     works;
>>    dns_name-server     : non-dns_name-browser, doesn't work;
>>    non-dns_name-server : dns_name-browser,     doesn't work;
>>    non-dns_name-server : non-dns_name-browser, doesn't work.
>
>This is misleading.  SSL 3.0 and TLS 1.0 servers are required to
>ignore extra data at the end of the ClientHello message, and obviously
>non-dns_name servers would only be used in situations where the
>dns_name extension is not needed (i.e., no name-based virtual
>hosting).  Thus the only configuration that is problematic is when a
>server requires dns_name, but the client does not support it.  This is
>similar to the HTTP "Host" header situation some time ago.

The context of discussion was about dns_name only.  
I.e. the tabulation was only meant for dns_name deployment.
(What else was the thread about?)

Joe Hui
Digital Island

---
You are currently subscribed to ietf-tls as: [email-masked]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email-masked]