4/1/2023 0 Comments Typestatus plus 11.3![]() ![]() Allow TLS clients and servers to negotiate that the server sends This functionality isĭesirable in order to conserve bandwidth in constrained access Allow TLS clients and servers to negotiate the use of truncated Of CA root keys due to memory limitations. Involving TLS clients that are only able to store a small number This functionality isĭesirable in order to prevent multiple handshake failures Allow TLS clients to indicate to TLS servers which certificationĪuthority (CA) root keys they possess. This functionality is desirable in order to Allow TLS clients and servers to negotiate the use of clientĬertificate URLs. Memory constraints among some clients, and bandwidth constraints This functionality is desirable as a result of Allow TLS clients and servers to negotiate the maximum fragment Multiple 'virtual' servers at a single underlying network address. Order to facilitate secure connections to servers that host Allow TLS clients to provide to the TLS server the name of the Specifically, the extensions described in this document: The extension types defined in this document are:Ĭlient_certificate_url(2), trusted_ca_keys(3), The addition of new cipher suites, are deferred. Provided by the TLS protocol message formats. The extensions described here focus on extending the functionality Material from RFC 4366, which covered TLS extensions for TLS 1.0 ( RFC 2246) and TLS 1.1 ( RFC 4346). It is, for the most part, the adaptation and editing of This document provides the specifications for existing TLSĮxtensions. Section 7.4.1.4 of ), and IANA Considerations for theĪllocation of new extension code points however, it does not specifyĪny particular extensions other than Signature Algorithms (see That specification includes the framework forĮxtensions to TLS, considerations in designing such extensions (see The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2 is specified RFC 6066 TLS Extension Definitions January 2011 1. Security Considerations for status_request. Security Considerations for truncated_hmac. Security Considerations for trusted_ca_keys. Security Considerations for client_certificate_url. Security Considerations for max_fragment_length. Reference for TLS Alerts, TLS HandshakeTypes, andĮxtensionTypes. It for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages otherġ. Not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format Outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may The copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling Modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETFĬontributions published or made publicly available before Novemberġ0, 2008. ![]() RFC 6066 TLS Extension Definitions January 2011 ![]() The Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as Include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of Code Components extracted from this document must Please review these documentsĬarefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Information about the current status of this document, any errata,Īnd how to provide feedback on it may be obtained atĬopyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741. Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Received public review and has been approved for publication by the It represents the consensus of the IETF community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force This is an Internet Standards Track document. Trusted_ca_keys, truncated_hmac, and status_request. Server_name, max_fragment_length, client_certificate_url, It is a companion document for RFC 5246, "The Transport Layer This document provides specifications for existing TLS extensions. Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions: Extension Definitions Updated by: 8446, 8449, 9325 Errata Exist Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. RFC 6066: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions: Extension Definitions ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |