On 11/21/16 at 4:56 PM, d...@cr.yp.to (D. J. Bernstein) wrote:
The messages on the list seem to be perfectly split between "TLS 1.3"
and "TLS 4". I suspect that the "TLS 2017" idea will break this impasse:
* it shares the fundamental advantage that led to the "TLS 4" idea;
* it has the additional advantage of making the age obvious;
* it eliminates the "4 sounds too much like 3" complaint; and
* it eliminates the "where are TLS 2 and TLS 3?" complaint.
Perhaps it's worth starting a poll specifically between "TLS 1.3" and
"TLS 2017"? Or at least asking whether the new "TLS 2017" option would
swing some previous opinions?
Of course people who prioritize retaining the existing "TLS 1.3"
mindshare will be just as unhappy with "TLS 2017" as with "TLS 4", but
they'll get over it within a few years. :-)
The Ecmascript standards body, TC39 has moved to year ===
version. It seems to work well for them.
I don't think that using a year means that there will be a new
standard every year.
In the unlikely event that there is a standard bug bad enough to
need a second standard in one year, decimal version(s) could be
used e.g 2017.1. It would be understandable and act as
punishment for us who screwed up.
Cheers - Bill
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz | Concurrency is hard. 12 out | Periwinkle
(408)356-8506 | 10 programmers get it wrong. | 16345
Englewood Ave
www.pwpconsult.com | - Jeff Frantz | Los Gatos,
CA 95032
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
