> From: Hubert Kario [mailto:hka...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 4:48 AM
> To: Xiaoyin Liu <xiaoyi...@outlook.com>
> Cc: tls@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0?
>
> On Tuesday, 30 August 2016 22:20:45 CEST Xiaoyin Liu wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: TLS [mailto:tls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hubert Kario
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 4:14 PM
> > > To: tls@ietf.org
> > > Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0?
> > >
> > > 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
> >
> >
> > I don't think this is a problem. People will forget "TLS 1.3" and will
> > only remember "TLS 2.0" after some time.
>
> well, that's not the experience of our support engineers, people still confuse
> SSLv3 with TLSv<any>
It's normal that people confuse SSLv3 with TLS. SSL 3.0 was a released and
widely deployed protocol, and the term "SSL" is still widely used today to
refer to TLS. But the situation is much better if we rename TLS 1.3: TLS 1.3
spec has not been released, it is not supported by any non-testing clients or
servers, and there are not many documents, papers or blogs mentioning TLS 1.3.
This is why I said "TLS 1.3" is similar to "Windows 9" in terms of naming.
> if the WG really wants a TLSvX.0 name, the X really should be bigger than 3
>
Well, I prefer TLS 2.0, because it sounds more natural that major version 2
comes after major version 1. But TLS {>3}.0 is also fine to me, if the WG
thinks people may get confused between SSL 2.0 and TLS 2.0.
Xiaoyin
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
