On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Peter Gutmann <pgut...@cs.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
> The change was proposed long ago, and deferred by the chairs until now. > This > is just another variant of the inertia argument. You keep dismissing this argument out of hand, but I think it has merit. I think we can all admit the decision to rename SSL -> TLS is a mistake (to the point people are proposing to retroactively re-rename TLS back to SSL). There is now a huge body of work which calls the protocol "TLS 1.3" which will be cited for years to come. You wrote this whole body of work off as the concern of "TLS WG and a small number of people who interact with it" as if a move to a different version number comes at zero cost almost as if this work doesn't matter, but I have a different view: this is one more bit of errata in exactly the same vein as the SSL -> TLS move which anyone consulting this body of work will have to contend with. You will no doubt disagree, so I'm simply saying it for posterity: keeping the version TLS 1.3 is the least confusing option, IMO. -- Tony Arcieri
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
