What Jeff said makes a ton of sense to me. "TLS 2017" would solve the problems that "TLS 4 solves," without being confusing, and with the added benefit that the age is painfully obvious. I see big wins all around.
The downsides I see are that there is no major/minor distinction, and it would be hard to have 2 versions in a year - but I think both are small issues. On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Jeffrey Walton <noloa...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > > > by 2 December 2016. > > Please forgive my ignorance... > > Who are you targeting for the versioning scheme? Regular users? Mom > and pop shops with a web presence? Tech guys and gals? Security folks? > > For most tech people and security folks, I don't think it matters > much. However, how many regular users would have clung to SSLv3 and > TLS 1.0 (given TLS 1.2 was available) if they were named SSL 1995 and > TLS 1999 (given TLS 2008 or TLS 2010 was available)? > > (Sorry to violate the Hum restriction). > > Jeff > > _______________________________________________ > 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
