On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Tony Arcieri <basc...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 8:43 PM, Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-d...@dukhovni.org> > wrote: >> >> > I actually completely agree with Timothy Jackson's recent posting: >> > >> > After 15 years, everyone but us still calls it SSL. We need to >> > admit that we lost the marketing battle and plan for a world where >> > everyone calls “TLS X” “SSL X”. Even “new” implementations call >> > themselves “LibreSSL” and “BoringSSL” rather than “LibreTLS” or >> > “BoringTLS”. >> >> I'll drink to that! > > > I will also +1 this and add that if the goal is to reduce confusion, a last > minute renaming of TLS 1.3 to something else probably won't accomplish that, > but will rather create more confusion. There's already ample material out > there (papers, presentations, mailing list discussions, etc) which talks > about "TLS 1.3". Rebranding it now would add an additional bit of errata > everyone needs to learn if they ever encountered the "TLS 1.3" version in > any of these materials. And I think the whole SSL/TLS thing is errata > enough.
So what should X be in above email? Clearly it should be \geq 4. > > -- > Tony Arcieri > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls > -- "Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains". --Rousseau. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
