Re: [TLS] Confirming consensus: TLS1.3->TLS*

What Jeff said makes a ton of sense to me.

"TLS 2017" would solve the problems that "TLS 4 solves," without being
confusing, and with the added benefit that the age is painfully obvious.  I
see big wins all around.

The downsides I see are that there is no major/minor distinction, and it
would be hard to have 2 versions in a year - but I think both are small
issues.

On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> wrote:
> > At IETF 97, the chairs lead a discussion to resolve whether the WG
> should rebrand TLS1.3 to something else.  Slides can be found @
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-
> 97-tls-rebranding-aka-pr612-01.pdf.
> >
> > The consensus in the room was to leave it as is, i.e., TLS1.3, and to
> not rebrand it to TLS 2.0, TLS 2, or TLS 4.  We need to confirm this
> decision on the list so please let the list know your top choice between:
> >
> > - Leave it TLS 1.3
> > - Rebrand TLS 2.0
> > - Rebrand TLS 2
> > - Rebrand TLS 4
> >
> > by 2 December 2016.
>
> Please forgive my ignorance...
>
> Who are you targeting for the versioning scheme? Regular users? Mom
> and pop shops with a web presence? Tech guys and gals? Security folks?
>
> For most tech people and security folks, I don't think it matters
> much. However, how many regular users would have clung to SSLv3 and
> TLS 1.0 (given TLS 1.2 was available) if they were named SSL 1995 and
> TLS 1999 (given TLS 2008 or TLS 2010 was available)?
>
> (Sorry to violate the Hum restriction).
>
> Jeff
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>