On 06/07/14 20:29, Yaron Sheffer wrote: > Adding some data to my previous mail: > > As of Jan. 2014, 65% of the top 1M Web servers did not speak TLS 1.1 or > 1.2 [1]. So while we should move implementations to TLS 1.2 (as we do in > this draft), it is probably too early to mandate against the fallback to > TLS 1.0.
I wonder if that's changed post-heartbleed? I suspect it may well have but no idea by how much. Anyone know? S. > > Thanks, > Yaron > > [1] https://jve.linuxwall.info/blog/index.php?post/TLS_Survey > > On 07/06/2014 10:09 PM, Yaron Sheffer wrote: >> Hi Trevor, thanks for your review. Please see my comments in line. >> >> On 06/30/2014 09:11 PM, Trevor Freeman wrote: >>> General Comments. >>> > [...] > >>> >>> Section 3.2 still treats SSL 3.0 differently to TLS 1.0. Why is it ok to >>> fall back to TLS 1.0 but not SSL 3.0 if both offer the same security? >> >> This is a good question. I believe the answer is, because much of the >> server population still only supports TLS 1.0, and if we recommend >> otherwise, the recommendation will be ignored for (justified) >> interoperability reasons. But I may be wrong about the prevalence of >> such servers. >> > [...] > > _______________________________________________ > Uta mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta > > _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
