Tony Arcieri <basc...@gmail.com> writes:
>There is now a huge body of work which calls the protocol "TLS 1.3"
When you say "huge body of work" you're referring to an IETF draft with "no
formal status, subject to change or removal at any time; therefore they should
not be cited or quoted in any formal document" (in other words a no-op), and
some research reports/papers and blog posts, pretty much invisible to anyone
outside the WG and a few people who follow it in the crypto community. To
quote Douglas Adams, "this must be some new use of the word huge with which I
wasn't previously familiar".
So I'll maintain my point that the only real argument that's been put forward
for 1.3 is inertia, "we've always done it this way and I don't want to
change". And that's why I support 4, or 2017, or whatever: The WG can pretend
it's meant to be called TLS, everyone else can keep calling it SSL like they
always have, but no matter what, the numbers will work out. No matter how you
choose to label the alphabetical part, either 4 or 2017 is obviously the
newer, better version number.
Peter.
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
