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

[Peter Gutmann <[e-mail]>]

Nick Sullivan <[e-mail]> writes:

>I took a very unofficial Twitter poll on this subject:
>https://twitter.com/grittygrease/status/803644086666215424

Given the lack of context for the question (an out-of-the-blue query
to a random bunch of people on Twitter), I think the inevitable TLSy 
McTLSface (given as Crypty McCryptFace in one response) is kind of 
representative of the quality of responses...

I actually completely agree with Timothy Jackson's recent posting:

  After 15 years, everyone but us still calls it SSL. We need to 
  admit that we lost the marketing battle and plan for a world where 
  everyone calls “TLS X” “SSL X”. Even “new” implementations call 
  themselves “LibreSSL” and “BoringSSL” rather than “LibreTLS” or 
  “BoringTLS”.

Spurred by that, I've been watching out for any uses of $protocol-
name that I come across in news, books, journals, blogs, whatever.
It's pretty clear cut: What we call TLS, the rest of the world calls
SSL.  The only place where it was referred to specifically as TLS
was in IETF WG postings and in conference papers.  To the rest of
the world, the protocol is SSL.  So given that the world will know 
it as SSL <something>, it had better have a number that makes 
explicit what precedence it takes, either 4 or 2017.  Whatever it
is, it needs to be something that can be ranked against "SSL" and
"SSL 3" and be an obvious improvement.

Peter.