Peter has some excellent points here (although I would prefer "TLS 2.0").
Perhaps the "re-branders" are losing votes and hums because we're fragmented into numerous camps. With this in mind, I'm voting in favor of any re-branding of TLS 1.3 where the protocol name remains "TLS" and major version becomes > 1. Cheers, Andrei -----Original Message----- From: TLS [mailto:tls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Gutmann Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 6:41 PM To: Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusva...@welho.com> Cc: <tls@ietf.org> <tls@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [TLS] Confirming consensus: TLS1.3->TLS* Replying to several messages at once to save space: Ilari Liusvaara: >One can downnegotiate TLS 1.3 to TLS 1.2. Ah, you're obviously a fan of Steve Wozniak humour. When someone asked him whether it was possible to upgrade from an Apple II+ to an Apple IIe, he similarly said "yes, you unplug the power cable from the II+, throw it away, and plug the IIe into the newly-vacated power cable". Christian Huitema: >I prefer TLS 1.3, because is signals continuity with the ongoing TLS >deployment efforts. Maybe it's just me, but wouldn't the fact that they're both called TLS sort of indicate that there's continuity there? Dave Kern: >I'm in favor of TLS 4, and ignoring the minor version number (in the >friendly text string, not the protocol field) moving forward. That's actually a good point, "TLS 4" provides a single, clean number for people to remember. Even a CTO or auditor should be able to get that one right without having to look up a table in a book to see that 1.3 > v3. Peter. _______________________________________________ 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
