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

The bottom line is that this is an unanswerable question.   My advice
is to not change the name, because I think more name changes = more
confusion and it is _way_ too late to put TLS back in the box.   But
what do I know--I'm just an end user!   :)

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 2 December 2016 14:12:38 CET Salz, Rich wrote:
>> > SSL 2 < SSL 3 < "SSL" 1.0 < "SSL" 1.1 < "SSL" 1.2 < "SSL" 4 is not logical
>> > ordering
>>
>> So?  Who cares?  A couple-hundred people in the IETF.  And the issue is that
>> SSL 3 < "SSL" 1.0 which is the issue no matter what we call what we're
>> doing here.  And the quotes around the last SSL do not belong there.
>
>> You can say that calling it "TLS 1.3" promulgates the illogical ordering, or
>> you could say it continues a renumbering.  A renumbering that the world has
>> never recognized or understood.  You can say that "SSL 4" confuses people
>> twice, or you can say that it restores sanity to a 20-year glitch and
>> starts us using the same name that the rest of the world, *and our
>> industry,* uses.
>
> what it does is it introduces a second glitch
>
> speaking of confusion, do you know that e-mail clients by "SSL" mean "SSL/TLS"
> and by "TLS" mean "STARTTLS"?
> (note the port numbers)
> https://sils.unc.edu/it-services/email-faq/outlook
> https://mail.aegee.org/smtp/kmail.html
> https://sils.unc.edu/it-services/my-computer/email-faq/thunderbird
>
> --
> Regards,
> Hubert Kario
> Senior Quality Engineer, QE BaseOS Security team
> Web: www.cz.redhat.com
> Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkyňova 99/71, 612 45, Brno, Czech Republic
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>