I have a small preference for TLS 1.3. On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Scott Schmit <i.g...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:12:48AM +0900, Sean Turner 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. > > I find it compelling that if we lived in an alternate universe where we > had SSL 1996, TLS 1999, and a recently-published TLS 2006 or TLS 2008, > there would have been a lot less inertia about switching to a later > version. I find is very optimistic given our history that we could > manage two TLS versions in a year. If that ever happened, though, we > could do 2019.1 (as an increment) or 2019.11 (for the month). > > Barring that, I'd prefer TLS 4, since that gets us out of the version > confusion swamp. It would seem that almost nobody outside the security > community understands the distinction between SSL and TLS; so if we call > it TLS 4, we'll probably see it referred to as SSLv4. And that wouldn't > be horrible. If we call it TLS 2 or TLS 2.0, some might refer to it as > SSLv2. That would obviously be very bad. > > While it's nice to able to look up information about TLS 1.3 drafts, > most of that information is going to be inaccurate anyway, so I don't > see that as a compelling reason to stick to it. Granted, you have > specific buzz for "TLS 1.3 is going to really improve things" but that's > fairly easy to translate to "the new version of TLS is going to really > improve things". > > The distinction between 2 vs 2.0 seems pretty minor. SSLv2 is 2.0 and > SSLv3 is 3.0, but few write it that way. > > Thus my ranked preference would be: > > TLS 2017 > TLS 4 > TLS 1.3 > TLS 2 or TLS 2.0 > > But if I'm limited to a top choice from the list, then "Rebrand TLS 4" > > -- > Scott Schmit > > _______________________________________________ > 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
