Subject: Re: [TLS] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-badra-hajjeh-mtls-00.txt]

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 04:20:05 +0200 (MEST)

> David Hopwood a écrit:
>
> I'd just like to clarify that the extensions mechanism does not specify
> this. How any negotiation of options within an extension is handled is up
> to the definition of that particular extension.
>
> IOW, while the server cannot send an extension that was not in the client
> hello, this policy doesn't necessarily apply to individual options within
> extensions. So if it is intended to apply here, <draft-badra-hajjeh-mtls>
> should explicitly say so.
>

In this case, it is more interested to the client that the server responds
with all the applications it supports. This will be equivalent to the case
when the client initialises its extension with "ALL" as
ApplicationpProtocolName and "0x00 0x00" as TCPPort (or UDPPort), except
that it is the server who proposes more options.

However, if the client sends a list of application names and ports and
that the server does not support any of them, then the server should stop
the negotiation or should fall back on an ordinary TLS handshake.
The server must not answer to the multiplexing extension if it does not
support at least one application requested by the client. But do you agree
with that?

Best regards,
Badra

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls