If we decide to move to some numeral higher than 3 to avoid confusion, I recommend *TLS 4*, but urge people to tell the story of the name in a way that retains some sense of continuity and logic.
Here's a framing that makes sense: *TLS 4 is the fourth version of TLS* This framing will tell a positive message of progression, rather than embody a condescending message such as "we gave it this name because people aren't able to understand that TLS 1.3 is newer than SSL 3". It will also immediately make sense to people who were exposed to the marketing around Windows 7. Without this framing, TLS 4 (or 4.0) will seem like a confusing choice. (for the record, I'm still for TLS 1.3) On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:13 AM 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 by 2 December 2016. Thanks, J&S _______________________________________________ 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
