On Friday, 2 December 2016 14:12:38 CET Salz, Rich wrote: > > SSL 2 < SSL 3 < "SSL" 1.0 < "SSL" 1.1 < "SSL" 1.2 < "SSL" 4 is not logical > > ordering > > So? Who cares? A couple-hundred people in the IETF. And the issue is that > SSL 3 < "SSL" 1.0 which is the issue no matter what we call what we're > doing here. And the quotes around the last SSL do not belong there.
> You can say that calling it "TLS 1.3" promulgates the illogical ordering, or > you could say it continues a renumbering. A renumbering that the world has > never recognized or understood. You can say that "SSL 4" confuses people > twice, or you can say that it restores sanity to a 20-year glitch and > starts us using the same name that the rest of the world, *and our > industry,* uses. what it does is it introduces a second glitch speaking of confusion, do you know that e-mail clients by "SSL" mean "SSL/TLS" and by "TLS" mean "STARTTLS"? (note the port numbers) https://sils.unc.edu/it-services/email-faq/outlook https://mail.aegee.org/smtp/kmail.html https://sils.unc.edu/it-services/my-computer/email-faq/thunderbird -- Regards, Hubert Kario Senior Quality Engineer, QE BaseOS Security team Web: www.cz.redhat.com Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkyňova 99/71, 612 45, Brno, Czech Republic
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
