On Friday, 2 December 2016 14:04:36 CET Salz, Rich wrote: > Nobody knows the difference tween 1.0 1.1 1.2 > > SSL 4 or SSL 4.0 is a bigger number than 1.x and uses the same term that > everyone, including our industry, uses. If someone sees "TLS 1.2" and > thinks "wow, that's so much worse than SSL 4 because the number is so much > smaller," then isn't that a good thing, increasing pressure to move > forward?
Or he thinks "stupid 'experts' pushing stuff down our throats by inflating numbers". Certainly not all of them will think the same thing. > I would much rather spend time explaining "no, really TLS 1.2 is not that > bad" than have to spend more decades explaining "no, really, that thing the > world things of as SSL is really TLS and 1.3 is really better than what you > think you should have." Except in 10 years we may be explaining that "no, TLS 1.3/2.0/4/2017 alone is completely insecure, you need to deploy post-quantum crypto on TLS 1.2/2.0/4/2017" -- Regards, Hubert Kario Senior Quality Engineer, QE BaseOS Security team Web: www.cz.redhat.com Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkyňova 99/71, 612 45, Brno, Czech Republic
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
