If it wasn't because we don't need more noise in this discussion I would have suggested SSL 5.0 which seems to be the logical conclusion from the reasoning people are using. Clearly, everyone thinks that the battle of replacing "SSL" with "TLS" in the popular and technical references to the standard has been lost and there is not much hope to win it in the future. So if the mountain won't come to Muhammad then go back to SSL and call it SSL 5.0 leaving SSL 4.0 as an historic parallel/re-naming of TLS 1.0. (Also note that the two 'S' of SSL already hint to the number 5 and L is 50 in Roman numerals.)
On a more serious note, I would keep a minor option in whatever is chosen (e.g. 4.0). The reason is that I can see more resistance in the future to minor revisions if such revision needs to be called TLS 5 rather than 4.1. However, minor but crucial revisions may be needed sooner than one hopes for and delaying them for when more changes are accumulated is not a good thing. Hugo
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
