On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Tony Arcieri <basc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 8:43 PM, Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-d...@dukhovni.org>
>> > I actually completely agree with Timothy Jackson's recent posting:
>> > After 15 years, everyone but us still calls it SSL. We need to
>> > admit that we lost the marketing battle and plan for a world where
>> > everyone calls “TLS X” “SSL X”. Even “new” implementations call
>> > themselves “LibreSSL” and “BoringSSL” rather than “LibreTLS” or
>> > “BoringTLS”.
>> I'll drink to that!
> I will also +1 this and add that if the goal is to reduce confusion, a last
> minute renaming of TLS 1.3 to something else probably won't accomplish that,
> but will rather create more confusion. There's already ample material out
> there (papers, presentations, mailing list discussions, etc) which talks
> about "TLS 1.3". Rebranding it now would add an additional bit of errata
> everyone needs to learn if they ever encountered the "TLS 1.3" version in
> any of these materials. And I think the whole SSL/TLS thing is errata
So what should X be in above email? Clearly it should be \geq 4.
> Tony Arcieri
> TLS mailing list
"Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains".
TLS mailing list