2008/2/14, Peter Sylvester wrote:

> A question is whether it hurts to set the SNI extension by default. As
> indicated in the RFC, it seems that there are no TLS server in the wild
> that are heavily broken at that point, maybe an option --nosni would
> be sufficient; --nosni would in fact also be active if ssl2 is not
> disabled. I think starting disabling ssl2 by default is also a good thing
> today.

Yes and the option to disable it is also needed at this point just in
case the library providing the actual client SNI implementation
happens to have any strange quirk. After all it is still released with
it disabled as default. ;-)

-- 
-=[Yang]=-