Is it worth having a poll (hate it, neutral, love it) on options to judge preference It seems like options are (I may have missed some):
- TLS 1.3 (ie, the default if we do nothing) - TLS 2.0 - TLS 2 - TLS/2 - TLS 4.0 - TLS/4 - TLS 4 - TLS 34 On the topic of "what does this re-open", I'm not convinced it does. The concept of doing a rename shortly before the last call goes way back and has been correctly deferred as bike-shedding until now. What color do we want our bike shed? Erik On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Nick Sullivan <nicholas.sulli...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls