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

[Bill Frantz <[e-mail]>]

On 11/21/16 at 4:56 PM, [e-mail] (D. J. Bernstein) wrote:

>The messages on the list seem to be perfectly split between "TLS 1.3"
>and "TLS 4". I suspect that the "TLS 2017" idea will break this impasse:
>
>* it shares the fundamental advantage that led to the "TLS 4" idea;
>* it has the additional advantage of making the age obvious;
>* it eliminates the "4 sounds too much like 3" complaint; and
>* it eliminates the "where are TLS 2 and TLS 3?" complaint.
>
>Perhaps it's worth starting a poll specifically between "TLS 1.3" and
>"TLS 2017"? Or at least asking whether the new "TLS 2017" option would
>swing some previous opinions?
>
>Of course people who prioritize retaining the existing "TLS 1.3"
>mindshare will be just as unhappy with "TLS 2017" as with "TLS 4", but
>they'll get over it within a few years. :-)

The Ecmascript standards body, TC39 has moved to year === 
version. It seems to work well for them.

I don't think that using a year means that there will be a new 
standard every year.

In the unlikely event that there is a standard bug bad enough to 
need a second standard in one year, decimal version(s) could be 
used e.g 2017.1.  It would be understandable and act as 
punishment for us who screwed up.

Cheers - Bill

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz        | Concurrency is hard. 12 out  | Periwinkle
[phone]      | 10 programmers get it wrong. | 16345 
Englewood Ave
www.pwpconsult.com |                - Jeff Frantz | Los Gatos, 
CA 95032