> First: where can we see the study that proves people are indeed confused > that TLS > SSL? I don’t buy into that. Are people really confused after 17 > years > of TLS?
Well, for example, your website has twice as many mentions of SSL as TLS. Why? Why don't you have a product called "Universal TLS"? The ratio is the same for letsencrypto.org. TLS 1.0 had already existed for more then a decade before either place existed. BTW, at google, it's 20:1, and that's just google, not the web. (Counts were done in the obvious dumb way "site:letsencrypt.org tls" and then with "ssl" and noting the summary stats at the top of the return results.) People are confused because we treat them as the same thing. > Third: There was *some* marketing on TLS 1.3, and changing the name now > will just tell the public the WG is confused and doesn’t know what its doing. The public has no idea what the WG is. Listen to the non-developers who have posted here. Version numbers matter to low-information decision makers, who need something quick and simple to grab on to. It's silly, but so is the real world. TLS 4 or TLS 4.0 The technology will get more exposure as the trade press explains why the new version number -- it's so much more secure than what we've had before -- and therefore the "new TLS" will get more mindshare. And therefore adoption will be more rapid. That's what we want, right? Or are we satisfied with just letting two browser's canary builds pull the entire Internet forward? Yes it wil be inconvenient. Suck it up, buttercup. At the IETF this week we had people telling people from an entire industry segment "too bad, this is the right thing to do; adapt." (I exaggerate for effect here.) And now we're going to confuse the world because we can't change the name of a GitHub repo, a few #define's in source, and maybe a Wikipedia page? _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
