Is it worth having a poll (hate it, neutral, love it) on options to judge
preference
It seems like options are (I may have missed some):
- TLS 1.3 (ie, the default if we do nothing)
- TLS 2.0
- TLS 2
- TLS/2
- TLS 4.0
- TLS/4
- TLS 4
- TLS 34
On the topic of "what does this re-open", I'm not convinced it does.
The concept of doing a rename shortly before the last call goes way back
and has been correctly deferred as bike-shedding until now.
What color do we want our bike shed?
Erik
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Nick Sullivan <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I am reluctant to endorse a name change from TLS 1.3 to TLS 2.0. I see a
> few immediate issues with the proposal:
> - it causes confusion with SSL 2.0
> - it implies wire incompatibility with TLS 1.2
> - it suggests there will be a forthcoming TLS 2.1 with only minor changes
>
> If we're dead set on bumping the major version for a mostly backwards
> compatible protocol change, we should just drop the minor version and go
> with TLS/2.
>
> Nick
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 12:24 PM Bill Frantz <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> We could call it TLS 3.4 which would match the internal ID. :-)
>>
>> BTW, I think using something other than 1.3 is a good idea.
>>
>> Cheers - Bill
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Bill Frantz | When it comes to the world | Periwinkle
>> (408)356-8506 | around us, is there any choice | 16345 Englewood Ave
>> www.pwpconsult.com | but to explore? - Lisa Randall | Los Gatos, CA 95032
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TLS mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>
>
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
