On 30/08/16 21:14, Hubert Kario wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 August 2016 14:19:33 CEST Dave Garrett wrote:* Keep the version ID as { 3, 4 } (already weird counting; changing risks more intolerance)IMNSHO this alone is enough of a reason not to do this it's enough explaining to people that SSLv3.3 is really TLSv1.2, now we'll have SSLv3.4 == TLSv1.3 == TLSv2.0 it's silly at this point
It's been silly for nearly two decades already! https://plus.google.com/+IlyaGrigorik/posts/BesDRVDqB4h So... On 30/08/16 21:20, Erik Nygren wrote: <snip>
However, I think we should consider calling it TLS 4 or TLS 4.0 or TLS 5. In particular, much of the non-technical audience still calls it "SSL" (pet peeve of many of us, I suspect) and having a version number clearly greater than SSLv3 and not confusing with SSLv2 would be quite valuable. "TLS 2" may have risk for unfortunate confusions with SSLv2 and SSLv3.
How about we drop the "TLS" name completely, and simply call it "SSLv4" or "SSLv5" ? Then the non-technical audience that still calls it "SSL" would magically become correct again. :-)
Returning to a previous name seems to be trendy at the moment... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS -- Rob Stradling Senior Research & Development Scientist COMODO - Creating Trust Online _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
