Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0?

[Andrei Popov <[e-mail]>]

> No they don’t always look at the 16-bit field (although they might), but they look at you funny when you tell them that 1.0 > 3.0 and that you should totally disable 3.0 and prefer to use 1.2 instead.
:) True, but when this happens, I simply tell them that all SSL versions are broken, so they have to use TLS.
I'd rather have a consistent versioning story for TLS (1.0->1.1->1.2->2.0), rather than trying to fix the SSL3->TLS1.0 inconsistency at this point.
It's already fun enough to explain why DTLS jumped from 1.0 to 1.2 (or Windows from 8 to 10, for that matter).

-----Original Message-----
From: TLS [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Yoav Nir
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:55 AM
To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0?


> On 31 Aug 2016, at 12:21 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Tue 2016-08-30 16:14:06 -0400, Hubert Kario wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 30 August 2016 14:19:33 CEST Dave Garrett wrote:
>>> * Keep the version ID as { 3, 4 } (already weird counting; changing 
>>> risks more intolerance)
>> 
>> IMNSHO this alone is enough of a reason not to do this
>> 
>> it's enough explaining to people that SSLv3.3 is really TLSv1.2, now 
>> we'll have SSLv3.4 == TLSv1.3 == TLSv2.0
>> 
>> it's silly at this point
> 
> Who are you talking to who's fine with looking at the bytes on the 
> wire but isn't fine with understanding that a 16-bit field might not 
> map directly to our imagination of decimal?

No they don’t always look at the 16-bit field (although they might), but they look at you funny when you tell them that 1.0 > 3.0 and that you should totally disable 3.0 and prefer to use 1.2 instead.