+2
On removing all  references to SSL.

From: TLS [mailto:tls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of darin.pet...@usbank.com
Sent: Friday, December 2, 2016 1:55 PM
To: Andrei Popov <andrei.po...@microsoft.com>
Cc: TLS <tls-boun...@ietf.org>; <tls@ietf.org> <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Confirming consensus: TLS1.3->TLS*

+1 with Andrei.

"That SSL should never be used" is the one clear message we have so going back 
to SSL would muddy those waters too much.  Strong vote for staying with TLS.  
It will become better known over time- especially with the current enterprise 
push to deprecate all SSL versions from use.
Regarding the numbering schema, someone recently mentioned that probably only a 
few hundred of us are aware of the TLS 1.3 nomenclature at this point and I 
would concur with that.  So, after considering all of the good points that have 
been circulating, I would like to change my vote to TLS 2017.  It provides 
clarity, recognizes that it is a major change and pulls us out of the whole 
SSL/TLS numbering confusion/quagmire.

Darin



From:        Andrei Popov 
<andrei.po...@microsoft.com<mailto:andrei.po...@microsoft.com>>
To:        Daniel Kahn Gillmor 
<d...@fifthhorseman.net<mailto:d...@fifthhorseman.net>>, Peter Gutmann 
<pgut...@cs.auckland.ac.nz<mailto:pgut...@cs.auckland.ac.nz>>, Stephen Farrell 
<stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie<mailto:stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie>>, David Benjamin 
<david...@chromium.org<mailto:david...@chromium.org>>, Tony Arcieri 
<basc...@gmail.com<mailto:basc...@gmail.com>>, 
"<tls@ietf.org<mailto:tls@ietf.org>>" <tls@ietf.org<mailto:tls@ietf.org>>
Date:        12/02/2016 12:34 PM
Subject:        Re: [TLS] Confirming consensus: TLS1.3->TLS*
Sent by:        "TLS" <tls-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:tls-boun...@ietf.org>>
________________________________



Indeed, "all known versions of SSL are broken and should never be used" is what 
I've been telling people for a while now...

-----Original Message-----
From: TLS [mailto:tls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Kahn Gillmor
Sent: Friday, December 2, 2016 6:36 AM
To: Peter Gutmann 
<pgut...@cs.auckland.ac.nz<mailto:pgut...@cs.auckland.ac.nz>>; Stephen Farrell 
<stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie<mailto:stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie>>; David Benjamin 
<david...@chromium.org<mailto:david...@chromium.org>>; Tony Arcieri 
<basc...@gmail.com<mailto:basc...@gmail.com>>; 
<tls@ietf.org<mailto:tls@ietf.org>> <tls@ietf.org<mailto:tls@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Confirming consensus: TLS1.3->TLS*

On Fri 2016-12-02 03:33:21 -0500, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> If no-one from Microsoft has any objections, can we just rename it
> back to what it's always been for everyone but us, SSL?

fwiw, the industry (and stackexchange) uses "SSL" to mean all sorts of things, 
not only TLS.  Yesterday i got an e-mail from a reputable CA reseller that said 
"Your SSL is expiring in two days!  Buy a new SSL now!"

Surely no one is proposing that we also re-name the X.509 certificate format to 
"SSL" just because vendors whose business models revolve around these products 
are confused about terminology.  What else should we rename to "SSL" on that 
basis?  Maybe a load-balancer is also "SSL"!

Here's a useful and effective meme for convincing bosses that it's ok to turn 
off SSLv3: all known versions of SSL are broken and should never be used.  
Please do not break this meme by trying to rename TLS to SSL.

I don't care about the bikeshed over the number: i'd be fine with any of TLS 
1.3 or TLS 4 or TLS 2017.  But can we please not create *even more* confusion 
by bikeshedding over the name itself?

      --dkg

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org<mailto:TLS@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls




U.S. BANCORP made the following annotations
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Privacy Notice. This e-mail, and any attachments, contains 
information that is, or may be, covered by electronic communications privacy 
laws, and is also confidential and proprietary in nature. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please be advised that you are legally prohibited from 
retaining, using, copying, distributing, or otherwise disclosing this 
information in any manner. Instead, please reply to the sender that you have 
received this communication in error, and then immediately delete it. Thank you 
in advance for your cooperation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------


The information contained in this communication is highly confidential and is 
intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom this communication is 
directed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that 
any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of this information is 
prohibited. Please notify the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any 
unintended receipt and delete the original message without making any copies.
 
 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network of Michigan are 
nonprofit corporations and independent licensees of the Blue Cross and Blue 
Shield Association.
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

Reply via email to