On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: > At IETF 97, the chairs lead a discussion to resolve whether the WG should > rebrand TLS1.3 to something else. Slides can be found @ > https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-tls- > rebranding-aka-pr612-01.pdf. > > The consensus in the room was to leave it as is, i.e., TLS1.3, and to not > rebrand it to TLS 2.0, TLS 2, or TLS 4. We need to confirm this decision > on the list so please let the list know your top choice between: > > - Leave it TLS 1.3 > - Rebrand TLS 2.0 > - Rebrand TLS 2 > - Rebrand TLS 4 >
Because I have literally had the experience of a (very) major organization insisting that HTTPS was not secure because the "most recent" version, SSL version 3.0, had recently been broken, I support moving this out to TLS 4. But more generally, I support getting off of the major/minor version naming scheme. There are no "minor versions" of TLS. Every one is a huge deal for the ecosystem to update to. I think it will be simpler for everyone in the future if TLS always just uses whole numbers with no decimal points. So either TLS 4 or TLS 2 would be improvements in some way. TLS 2.0 wouldn't get you improvements in either category. As really a non-participant in the WG, I don't expect my preference to count much, but for whatever it's worth, it would be: TLS 4 > TLS 2 > TLS 1.3 > TLS 2.0 -- Eric by 2 December 2016. > > Thanks, > J&S > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls > -- konklone.com | @konklone <https://twitter.com/konklone>
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
