(To clarify, I was not at all suggesting we go back to SSL. If we had a time machine, I might make other suggestions, but as far as I know we do not.)
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 12:45 PM Andrei Popov <andrei.po...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Not that I can speak for the whole of Microsoft, but I would not drop TLS > support in Windows if it were renamed "SSL":). > > However, "transport layer security" makes a lot more sense to me than > "secure sockets layer" because the latter seems to imply network > socket-style API, which is not a requirement of this protocol. > > Cheers, > > Andrei > > -----Original Message----- > From: TLS [mailto:tls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Gutmann > Sent: Friday, December 2, 2016 12:33 AM > To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie>; David Benjamin < > david...@chromium.org>; Tony Arcieri <basc...@gmail.com>; <tls@ietf.org> < > tls@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [TLS] Confirming consensus: TLS1.3->TLS* > > Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> writes: > > >IIRC that was sort-of a condition for adoption of the work in the IETF > >20 years ago, when there were two different protocols already being > >deployed and the proponents of one of them said "we'll use that other > >one (SSL) but you gotta change the name of the standard or we can't get > >our <bosses> to agree to change to all use the same thing." > > It was Netscape with SSL vs. Microsoft with PCT. > > If no-one from Microsoft has any objections, can we just rename it back to > what it's always been for everyone but us, SSL? > > Peter. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
