> On Nov 20, 2016, at 7:56 PM, D. J. Bernstein <d...@cr.yp.to> wrote:
>
> Of course people who prioritize retaining the existing "TLS 1.3"
> mindshare will be just as unhappy with "TLS 2017" as with "TLS 4", but
> they'll get over it within a few years. :-)
This worked well enough for IDNA2003 and IDNA2008 (the latter was
finally published in 2010, and even that is not a problem).
So I can get behind TLS 2017. I had even considered suggesting it,
but did not at the time want to add more options to the mix.
I think the risk of two TLS standards published in a single year
is vanishingly low. And see no problems with "gaps" in the numbers.
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
