Subject: [ietf-tls] Re: London

From: "Joseph Hui" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 13:52:51 -0700

What we need, IMHO, is a sound bite that can succinctly communicate
to the end users.  "You need the dns_name patch" (not unlike
the "you need the 128-bit patch" (for IE 5, e.g.)) would work well.
"You need a TLS 1.1 compliant browser" might work better, I think.

Joe Hui
Digital Island
================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Rescorla [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 3:19 PM
To: IETF Transport Layer Security WG
Subject: [ietf-tls] Re: London

"Mark Nottingham" <[email-masked]> writes:

> There's a difference between jumping between what are perceived as two
> different protocols (even though they're similar) and jumping versions
> (especially away from 1.0). Yes, this is just a perception thing, but
that's
> part of what versioning is about.
I agree that there is a difference but I think you've got it backwards.
Customers are a lot more sensitive to full version upgrades than minor
upgrades. They're a lot more likely to say "I want TLS" than "I want v
1.1".

> In the case of dns_name, CDNs will want to use it ASAP. If some
clients are
> clearly labeled (as above), CDN and other virtual hosters can have
their
> customers specify the use of such browsers; otherwise, there will be
> significant overhead in identifying the appropriate products to use.
I don't buy this. The way you specify which browsers to use is by
naming the versions, not by saying "you must have TLS 1.1".

The overhead of determining which clients support these extensions
is relatively trivial.
   
-Ekr
[Eric Rescorla                                   [email-masked]]
                http://www.rtfm.com/

---
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]