On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 08:13:41PM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote: > On 13/09/2018 09:57, Klaus Keppler wrote: > >Hi, > > > >thank you for all your responses. > > > >I've just tested with Firefox Nightly 64.0a1, and both s_server and our > >own app (using OpenSSL 1.1.1-release) are working fine. > > > >The Firefox website is quite confusing: > > > >>Firefox 61 is already shipping draft-28, which is essentially the same as the final published version (just with a different version number). > >(https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2018/08/13/tls-1-3-published-in-firefox-today/) > > > >This is quite confusing, as it sounds better than it actually is. > >(so I've just learned that draft-28 is obviously incompatible with RFC8446) > > > >So thank you for your input, will now continue with OpenSSL 1.1.1. > >The rest will be only a matter of time. :D > > > >Best regards > > > > -Klaus > Would it be reasonable for 1.1.1a to add a transitional "bugs" bit (to be > removed again in a few years) to accept the draft version number of final > TLS 1.3, if the protocols are otherwise identical? > > This would be similar to the (now historic) bits for known bugs in other > popular clients. It also seems to be what Facebook has done for their > own servers (according to other posts in this discussion). > > Or would it be unproblematic from a real world perspective to just keep > TLS 1.3 non-functional for draft-28 browsers? It would be unproblematic. Such browsers will use TLS 1.2 just fine, and are going to be auto-updating to a version capable of official TLS 1.3 very soon anyway. -Ben -- openssl-users mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
