On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:12:48AM +0900, Sean Turner wrote:
> At IETF 97, the chairs lead a discussion to resolve whether the WG should
> rebrand TLS1.3 to something else. Slides can be found @
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-tls-rebranding-aka-pr612-01.pdf.
>
> The consensus in the room was to leave it as is, i.e., TLS1.3, and to not
> rebrand it to TLS 2.0, TLS 2, or TLS 4. We need to confirm this decision
> on the list so please let the list know your top choice between:
>
> - Leave it TLS 1.3
> - Rebrand TLS 2.0
> - Rebrand TLS 2
> - Rebrand TLS 4
TLS 4 sounds about right to me:
* Conveys the substantial protocol changes
* Avoids any confusion from SSLv2/SSLv3 bearing higher numbers than TLS 1.x
* If someone happens to call it SSLv4 it will not be confusing.
* Matches the minor version on the wire protocol
Though with this choice, the next version would likely be TLS 5,
whether or not it is a major change or just incremental change, I
don't think it will going forward be important to convey that some
version updates are minor. A non-branching integral sequence feels
about right.
The only downside I see is that it becomes unclear what to call
some future protocol version with a wire protocol major number not
equal to 3. My take is that such a protocol would no longer be
TLS (it would presumably have an incompatible HELLO and/or record
layer format and would not be able to negotiate older protocol
versions), so there's likely not much point in calling such a
hypothetical beast "TLS".
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
