Nick Sullivan <nicholas.sulli...@gmail.com> writes: >I took a very unofficial Twitter poll on this subject: >https://twitter.com/grittygrease/status/803644086666215424
Given the lack of context for the question (an out-of-the-blue query to a random bunch of people on Twitter), I think the inevitable TLSy McTLSface (given as Crypty McCryptFace in one response) is kind of representative of the quality of responses... I actually completely agree with Timothy Jackson's recent posting: After 15 years, everyone but us still calls it SSL. We need to admit that we lost the marketing battle and plan for a world where everyone calls “TLS X” “SSL X”. Even “new” implementations call themselves “LibreSSL” and “BoringSSL” rather than “LibreTLS” or “BoringTLS”. Spurred by that, I've been watching out for any uses of $protocol- name that I come across in news, books, journals, blogs, whatever. It's pretty clear cut: What we call TLS, the rest of the world calls SSL. The only place where it was referred to specifically as TLS was in IETF WG postings and in conference papers. To the rest of the world, the protocol is SSL. So given that the world will know it as SSL <something>, it had better have a number that makes explicit what precedence it takes, either 4 or 2017. Whatever it is, it needs to be something that can be ranked against "SSL" and "SSL 3" and be an obvious improvement. Peter. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
