Hubert Kario <hka...@redhat.com> writes: >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?)
So after some discussion with some of the people who'll be using this, we came up with: TLS 1.2 Update for Long-term Support among other suggestions, but that seemed to be the best one. Other options were things like "modernisation" or "improvement" (and one of them suggested "adaptation" as well), but I think "update" says it best. "Revision" is more or less the same as "Update", so I guess either would fit, but I'm leaning more towards "Update". If no-one has any other suggestions I'll post an updated draft, I'm just waiting for permission to include the details of the interop test server that people can run their clients against. Peter. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
