> On 31 Aug 2016, at 8:28 PM, Andrei Popov <andrei.po...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> No they don’t always look at the 16-bit field (although they might), but
>> they look at you funny when you tell them that 1.0 > 3.0 and that you should
>> totally disable 3.0 and prefer to use 1.2 instead.
> :) True, but when this happens, I simply tell them that all SSL versions are
> broken, so they have to use TLS.
> I'd rather have a consistent versioning story for TLS (1.0->1.1->1.2->2.0),
> rather than trying to fix the SSL3->TLS1.0 inconsistency at this point.
> It's already fun enough to explain why DTLS jumped from 1.0 to 1.2 (or
> Windows from 8 to 10, for that matter).
I once had to explain to a GUI designer why this piece of UI genius was not a
good idea
Choose the minimal support SSL / TLS version:
| |
+-------+
| 1.0 |
| 1.1 |
| 1.2 |
| 2.0 |
| 3.0 |
+-----+
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
