Re: [TLS] Treatment of (legacy_record_)version field [was Re: (strict) decoding of legacy_record_version?]

2016-11-23 Thread Andreas Walz
>>> Eric Rescorla 11/23/16 2:18 PM >>> > In general, it should ignore it. It's going to become increasingly common to > have this be a version you don't support given the recommendation to use > 0301 and the ongoing deprecation of TLS 1.0. I think it would be fine to > sanity >

Re: [TLS] Treatment of (legacy_record_)version field [was Re: (strict) decoding of legacy_record_version?]

2016-11-23 Thread Eric Rescorla
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 3:39 AM, Andreas Walz wrote: > Dear all, > > bringing up this thread again > > In the course of studying the way TLS implementations treat the "version" > (or "legacy_record_version") field in the record header, we were wondering >

[TLS] Treatment of (legacy_record_)version field [was Re: (strict) decoding of legacy_record_version?]

2016-11-23 Thread Andreas Walz
Dear all, bringing up this thread again In the course of studying the way TLS implementations treat the "version" (or "legacy_record_version") field in the record header, we were wondering (please excuse if we missed some arguments here from past discussions): (1) What is an