Not that I can speak for the whole of Microsoft, but I would not drop TLS support in Windows if it were renamed "SSL":).
However, "transport layer security" makes a lot more sense to me than "secure sockets layer" because the latter seems to imply network socket-style API, which is not a requirement of this protocol. Cheers, Andrei -----Original Message----- From: TLS [mailto:tls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Gutmann Sent: Friday, December 2, 2016 12:33 AM To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie>; David Benjamin <david...@chromium.org>; Tony Arcieri <basc...@gmail.com>; <tls@ietf.org> <tls@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [TLS] Confirming consensus: TLS1.3->TLS* Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> writes: >IIRC that was sort-of a condition for adoption of the work in the IETF >20 years ago, when there were two different protocols already being >deployed and the proponents of one of them said "we'll use that other >one (SSL) but you gotta change the name of the standard or we can't get >our <bosses> to agree to change to all use the same thing." It was Netscape with SSL vs. Microsoft with PCT. If no-one from Microsoft has any objections, can we just rename it back to what it's always been for everyone but us, SSL? Peter. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
