For example, the mint TLS 1.3 library only supports 1.3. https://github.com/bifurcation/mint
On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 10:46 AM Nick Harper <i...@nharper.org> wrote: > Yes, backward compatibility is optional. > > On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 1:44 PM Toerless Eckert <t...@cs.fau.de> wrote: > >> I am trying to figure out if every implementation compliant with >> RFC8446 is also necessarily interoperable with an RFC5246 peer, or if this >> is just a likely common, but still completely optional implementation >> choice. >> >> I could not find any explicit statement that backward compatibility >> with RFC5246 is mandatory (but i just was doing browsing/keyword search >> over RFC8446). COnditional text such as: >> >> "implementations which support both TLS 1.3 and earlier versions SHOULD" >> >> make me think that TLS 1.2 backward compatibility is just optional. >> >> Thanks >> Toerless >> >> _______________________________________________ >> TLS mailing list >> TLS@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >> > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
