The bottom line is that this is an unanswerable question. My advice is to not change the name, because I think more name changes = more confusion and it is _way_ too late to put TLS back in the box. But what do I know--I'm just an end user! :)
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Hubert Kario <hka...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Friday, 2 December 2016 14:12:38 CET Salz, Rich wrote: >> > SSL 2 < SSL 3 < "SSL" 1.0 < "SSL" 1.1 < "SSL" 1.2 < "SSL" 4 is not logical >> > ordering >> >> So? Who cares? A couple-hundred people in the IETF. And the issue is that >> SSL 3 < "SSL" 1.0 which is the issue no matter what we call what we're >> doing here. And the quotes around the last SSL do not belong there. > >> You can say that calling it "TLS 1.3" promulgates the illogical ordering, or >> you could say it continues a renumbering. A renumbering that the world has >> never recognized or understood. You can say that "SSL 4" confuses people >> twice, or you can say that it restores sanity to a 20-year glitch and >> starts us using the same name that the rest of the world, *and our >> industry,* uses. > > what it does is it introduces a second glitch > > speaking of confusion, do you know that e-mail clients by "SSL" mean "SSL/TLS" > and by "TLS" mean "STARTTLS"? > (note the port numbers) > https://sils.unc.edu/it-services/email-faq/outlook > https://mail.aegee.org/smtp/kmail.html > https://sils.unc.edu/it-services/my-computer/email-faq/thunderbird > > -- > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
