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

(To clarify, I was not at all suggesting we go back to SSL. If we had a
time machine, I might make other suggestions, but as far as I know we do
not.)

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 12:45 PM Andrei Popov <Andrei.Popov@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> Not that I can speak for the whole of Microsoft, but I would not drop TLS
> support in Windows if it were renamed "SSL":).
>
> However, "transport layer security" makes a lot more sense to me than
> "secure sockets layer" because the latter seems to imply network
> socket-style API, which is not a requirement of this protocol.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andrei
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TLS [mailto:tls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Gutmann
> Sent: Friday, December 2, 2016 12:33 AM
> To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>; David Benjamin <
> davidben@chromium.org>; Tony Arcieri <bascule@gmail.com>; <tls@ietf.org> <
> tls@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [TLS] Confirming consensus: TLS1.3->TLS*
>
> Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> writes:
>
> >IIRC that was sort-of a condition for adoption of the work in the IETF
> >20 years ago, when there were two different protocols already being
> >deployed and the proponents of one of them said "we'll use that other
> >one (SSL) but you gotta change the name of the standard or we can't get
> >our <bosses> to agree to change to all use the same thing."
>
> It was Netscape with SSL vs. Microsoft with PCT.
>
> If no-one from Microsoft has any objections, can we just rename it back to
> what it's always been for everyone but us, SSL?
>
> Peter.
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>