> If we call the next one 4, we have to explain a gap in the versioning (1.0,
> 1.1, 1.2, 4?) and placing 2.0 and 3.0 after 1.2 becomes even more inviting.
No we don't have to explain it. Most of the world isn't OCD types like those
of us in this field.
> Once SSL 3.0 falls away, we'll be left with 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3, which is
> a plausible numbering progression. There'll still be the mess with SSL being
> the informal name for the protocol family, but that isn't a numbering problem.
Once SSL 3.0 falls away, the industry will still be calling the protocol SSL.
Except now the common name and the real name have no relationship.
And also, the world will not care about a gap in numbering. Nobody cared that
there was no Windows 9.
TLS mailing list