I am reluctant to endorse a name change from TLS 1.3 to TLS 2.0. I see a few immediate issues with the proposal: - it causes confusion with SSL 2.0 - it implies wire incompatibility with TLS 1.2 - it suggests there will be a forthcoming TLS 2.1 with only minor changes
If we're dead set on bumping the major version for a mostly backwards compatible protocol change, we should just drop the minor version and go with TLS/2. Nick On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 12:24 PM Bill Frantz <fra...@pwpconsult.com> wrote: > We could call it TLS 3.4 which would match the internal ID. :-) > > BTW, I think using something other than 1.3 is a good idea. > > Cheers - Bill > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Bill Frantz | When it comes to the world | Periwinkle > (408)356-8506 | around us, is there any choice | 16345 Englewood Ave > www.pwpconsult.com | but to explore? - Lisa Randall | Los Gatos, CA 95032 > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
