On 12/16/2011 03:21 PM, Robert Relyea wrote: > On 12/16/2011 11:02 AM, Christopher Howard wrote: >> On 12/14/2011 05:07 PM, Christopher Howard wrote: >>> Hi. I was wondering if there was a timeline for TLS 1.2 support in >>> libnss. I have a strong interest in the TLS extensions (particularly >>> server_name) as well as, of course, improved security, but I also have a >>> strong interest in Firefox and Chromium on the client side. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> I'll take the silence as a "no". Maybe it would be better to ask: Is >> there anyone even interested in seeing 1.2 implemented? > More like "Holiday's are not likely the best time to get a schedule > question answered". >
Sorry -- the holiday factor didn't even occur to me. Never travel or take vacations myself... > The short answer is, there isn't a specific timeline, but it is on the > radar. Currently we are looking at getting TLS 1.1 patches in first. I > don't have the relevant bugs on the top of my head. > > However, we do support TLS extensions already. Extensions are defined in > TLS 1.0, and just because a particular extension was added at some other > time frame, doesn't mean it couldn't be support. For TLS 1.2, it's > really the hash agility that's tricky, other extensions can and are > supported. In particular, NSS already supports the server_name > extension, and has for some time now. > > bob >> I did not know that. Sorry to have bothered the list with a silly question. While reading up on TLS, I just assumed that each version was an "all or nothing" package. -- frigidcode.com theologia.indicium.us
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- dev-tech-crypto mailing list dev-tech-crypto@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-crypto
