> > FWIW, I've definitely seen real-world confusion about SSLv3 being a more > recent protocol than TLS 1.X, by organizations that should know better. If > there's interest and consensus, this could be a good opportunity to reset > the situation with TLS/2 or TLS 4.0. > > I like TLS/2 aesthetically, and represents a similar level of > progress/reset that HTTP saw when it jumped from 1.1 to /2. > >
What is the slash in the name all about? Is it simply playing off the HTTP start line specification? Does it have any relevance to TLS? On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Eric Mill <e...@konklone.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Richard Barnes <r...@ipv.sx> wrote: > >> I am in total agreement with Nick here. "TLS 1.3" accurately describes >> what we're doing here, and it's consistent with our past naming scheme. >> >> There is no upside to changing away from 1.3, and as Nick notes, lots of >> potential downside. >> >> --Richard >> >> On Wednesday, August 31, 2016, 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 >>> >> > FWIW, I've definitely seen real-world confusion about SSLv3 being a more > recent protocol than TLS 1.X, by organizations that should know better. If > there's interest and consensus, this could be a good opportunity to reset > the situation with TLS/2 or TLS 4.0. > > I like TLS/2 aesthetically, and represents a similar level of > progress/reset that HTTP saw when it jumped from 1.1 to /2. > > -- Eric > > > >> >>> 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 >> >> > > > -- > konklone.com | @konklone <https://twitter.com/konklone> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
