levitte at openssl.org
Mon May 20 14:28:11 UTC 2019
On Mon, 20 May 2019 16:05:49 +0200,
Salz, Rich wrote:
> * The current requirement for inclusion is “national standard” or better. Thus, this change
> should be accepted.
> The problem is that they squatted on codepoints that the IETF controls. So while it is a national
> standard, it is also in conflict with the IETF specifications.
Did they? For the protocol version, they used something that has
never seen the light of day (0x0003 - 0x02ff is "free" and will most
probably never be used for TLS), and the cipher suites they added are
in a range that's unassigned (0xE0xx).
You *are* correct on one point, though... the Chinese standard isn't
TLS. Like Matt says, it's a different protocol, even though it
resembles TLS v1.1 quite a bit.
Richard Levitte levitte at openssl.org
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/
More information about the openssl-project