On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 01:35:41AM -0500, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
> TLS 4 is a confusing name that, as far as I can tell, cannot actually make
> things better. Right now we have:
>
> SSL 2 -> SSL 3 -> TLS 1.0 -> TLS 1.1 -> TLS 1.2 -> TLS 1.3 (1)
>
> Now, some people may get confused by this because of the "SSL is TLS"
> idea, but once you learn that in reality "SSL is a thing that was before
> TLS", it does make sense and seem fairly straightforward (a series of
> numbers under one name, followed by another series of numbers under the
> new name).
This feels like a contrived and speculative argument, backed by no
evidence. There is on the other hand actual user confusion with
the current numbers.
We should not rationalize personal preferences with plausible, and
yet non-factual arguments. It is fine to just state a preference.
If a majority of the WG prefers the status quo because 3 is a
Gaussian prime, and 4 is bad karma in China (*), then that's
sufficient, the reasons don't actually have to be rational.
--
Viktor.
(*) Some decades back, shortly before the hand-over of Hong-Kong
to China, there was a property boomlet in Melbourne, and IIRC some
streets sprouted houses numbered 3+1/2...
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
