On Friday, 2 December 2016 03:12:41 CET Peter Gutmann wrote: > Tony Arcieri <basc...@gmail.com> writes: > >There's already ample material out there (papers, presentations, mailing > >list discussions, etc) which talks about "TLS 1.3". > > In other words, the TLS WG and a small number of people who interact with it > call it TLS 1.3. That's hardly a strong argument when most of the rest of > the world doesn't even call it TLS. > > In fact that's something that's come up repeatedly in the bikeshedding so > far, there are some really good, sound arguments for calling it TLS/SSL 4 > or TLS/SSL 2017, while pretty much the only reasons I've seen for TLS 1.3 > are inertia, "we've always called it that"/"I don't want to change"/etc.
People already know that SSL3 is worse than "SSL" 1.0 though 1.2 , it's logical that SSL 1.3 continues that trend. creating "SSL" 4 will bring more confusion. In 10 years time, when the only way for you to get anything that can talk SSL 3 is to run EOL software and hardware, then we can create "SSL" 4. But not when one fifth of the Internet still supports SSL 3. -- Regards, Hubert Kario Senior Quality Engineer, QE BaseOS Security team Web: www.cz.redhat.com Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkyňova 99/71, 612 45, Brno, Czech Republic
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
