On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 06:35:13 pm Nick Sullivan wrote: > I am reluctant to endorse a name change from TLS 1.3 to TLS 2.0.
I was too, until we created a new cipher suite negotiation incompatible with previous versions. > I see a few immediate issues with the proposal: > - it causes confusion with SSL 2.0 I disagree. There is a perpetual confusion between SSL and TLS, but this doesn't really make it that much worse. > - it implies wire incompatibility with TLS 1.2 SSL 3.0 and TLS 1.0 share compatible hellos. A TLS 2 only client won't be able to connect to a TLS 1.2 only server, but that's true with all version changes. I don't see how a major version bump implies any more wire incompatibility, especially when we bend over backwards to maintain hello compatibility with SSL 3. > - it suggests there will be a forthcoming TLS 2.1 with only minor changes There could be, if we wanted to. I don't see a problem with that. > 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. I don't have a problem with dropping the ".0", but I don't see the point in the HTTP/2 style slash. TLS 2 is fine. Dave _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
