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

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Fri, 18 November 2016 09:42 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A03812966B for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 01:42:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YEB4y2-k9XFS for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 01:42:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22c.google.com (mail-qk0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A03A912963C for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 01:42:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id x190so255382502qkb.0 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 01:42:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=QleZaR533rnx/sS5iq/g57EJvxL1Rxz066NZQWeiVKc=; b=IDqK7s5ganaI/qjzsFUS4ZGi9k+3IpHQrZRvFFAEE3DNnLvAki6/6lY/AUuT38PMrn uSqXHEW21HX6RUkiI422Z0HHEcwn64SZuIInZ9eDQG4vV3MgStbgcegp/tPaqfc6Vvrk KVdEeOdiPfnk0NqTbXk7toiRjGpSK4E8D1IEN7ctPXFnwJdBO/L/YOn5ZJZ9WTUepQHX tKO7xmSEQ5PPfW+wqz2iAY8rz9wro0dHarX5NvjrE4W+/tAmgovgX3wKLOV+xuyfJlzF 6aiNe+KyhV21v7IeUXk0TkWnimAs8AHD4K6zLSEnCM9No7Vr/QMMwsRwwpVttMVxrA7j 10QQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QleZaR533rnx/sS5iq/g57EJvxL1Rxz066NZQWeiVKc=; b=aDvJRT378DYT6FVVg4TNZPURBR0D0JvYCFbnNDmXWxD4TR8IG1CF0Ha7n6jq6HdNFN 1vYhDbqRVqPOq4MXfao7VsY5NK+gRysCcubtSKLF7eYiUehwhjzoHP0wyR7viAv1pUhG MMH4Vnzo6tHIuy11TYGJXc7O4a+tAxtzshXSWY1hBt35vPGTLMN/Y5in68Se/duQxSlg EhsTK5iy7RtaR+dO6te8HjAViyUmBxFmG3W4aAfXB0OpWyf30zEkUmbKy5ZHk7p7esDi cjtb07moPKeGiOlJ7/OkF0ZDGm3/PYY4k8j423tkFhTYwZ2i9i531OFGHtHMxq6qA/Li GJZA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC00XQd/4UAW/PHYyM4+4xeeZyWCW8rfZD6WQV8isNbPz3m3xSPEmS5YSd6QRiXHUMabSGRwj9QuLXme7ZA==
X-Received: by 10.55.184.68 with SMTP id i65mr9830674qkf.5.1479462164780; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 01:42:44 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.85.7 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 01:42:44 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CF83FAD0-B337-4F9E-A80B-2BAA6826BF41@sn3rd.com>
References: <CF83FAD0-B337-4F9E-A80B-2BAA6826BF41@sn3rd.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 18:42:44 +0900
Message-ID: <CABkgnnX8jyA8iimweV3vDT0c4yph9i1121+9B9z2HXDAXcddtA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/2OAq1BepoxhOfYVzPFCZpfVgR7w>
Cc: "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Confirming consensus: TLS1.3->TLS*
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 09:42:47 -0000

On 18 November 2016 at 11:12, Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> wrote:
> - Leave it TLS 1.3

There is no point in re-litigating this decision.  The consensus call
was pretty clear in the room.

Perhaps the question would have been better phrased as: "does anyone
have new information that would suggest those present at the meeting
made the wrong choice?" or "does anyone vehemently object to this
decision?"  I see no new information in the responses thus far.

On 18 November 2016 at 16:27, Dave Garrett <davemgarrett@gmail.com> wrote:
> I suspect that a push for a major version bump a year and a half ago would've had more support

Yep, that would have been a more appropriate time to raise the naming
thing.  Now lots of people know this thing as TLS 1.3, which means a
name change would be a big setback to our marketing efforts (such as
they are ;)...