On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Yoav Nir <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 21 Nov 2016, at 20:43, Salz, Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> With this in mind, I'm voting in favor of any re-branding of TLS 1.3 > where the > >> protocol name remains "TLS" and major version becomes > 1. > > > > Me too. > > Agree > I can live with this approach, though if we go this way, I would have a strong preference for 4, as the minimum change that gets us clear of the SSL version numbers. That said, I still think 1.3 is the most sensible option. Regardless of what we do here, we're still going to have to struggle with "N > 1.2 > 1.1 > 1.0 > 3.0" for a long time. The only decision we've got here is which additional exasperating conversation we want to have in the future, "Yes, N is the one that comes after 1.2", or "Yes, 1.3 > 3.0". Might as well stick with the one we've been having all along anyway. --Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
