On Monday 13 June 2016 19:51:42 Peter Gutmann wrote: > Hubert Kario <hka...@redhat.com> writes: > >to be pedantic, the RFC describes itself "a profile" while in reality > >it modifies the protocol in a way that will make it incompatible > >with "vanilla" TLS 1.2 implementations > > > > Oh, right. Well that's easily fixed, I used "profile" because I > couldn't think of a better term, the best I could come up with is > "plan", but it's not really a plan either. If people think "plan" is > better than "profile", and it deals with Russ' objection, I'll change > it to that. Alternatively, if you can think of a better term than > "plan", let me know (or forever hold your peace > :-).
"TLS refitting for Long Term Support" "Adaptation of TLS for Long Term Support" "LTS revision of TLS" "LTS addendum to TLS 1.2" (amendment?) If "revision" does not overload the word too much in this context, it's the one I would vote for. -- 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
