Subject: [ietf-tls] Re: London

From: "Joseph Hui" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 14:45:20 -0700

It's reasonable to assume the context of dns_name discussion
to be always name-based virtual hosting.  So the compatibility
issue raised was specific for such practice.  

Anyway, I think it helps and it never hurts to deploy
dns_name-servers prior to the ubiquity of dns_name-clients,
as the dns_name-server:non-dns_name-client case is no worse
than non-dns_name-server:non-dns_name-client (which is
the current situation), and yet half way closer to
the dns_name-servers:dns_name-clients nirvana.
Of course, it's up to individual hosting entities to
decide for themselves the best timing for deployment.  
Yet I bet none of them will complain for having the
implementations available to them too early.

Joe Hui
Digital Island
===================================================================

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Rescorla [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 2:21 PM
To: IETF Transport Layer Security WG
Subject: [ietf-tls] Re: London

"Joseph Hui" <[email-masked]> writes:
> 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.
> 
> IMHO, Microsoft can do lots of good to help mitigate the migration
pain
> as we move onto the dns_name-servers:dns_name-browsers world, like
> launching the dns_name feature in IE server and browser
simultaneously.
Actually, the situation is more complicated than this. In theory,
all of these should WORK. It's just a matter of whether name-based
virtual hosting will work. Of course, in practice many servers
may not accept the extended client_hello, but that's a bug in
those servers.

The only situation in which the dns_name client is required or
useful is when talking to a server which uses name-based virtual
hosting. It won't pay off to deploy such servers until suitable
clients are already ubiquitous.

-Ekr

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

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