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

[David Adrian <[e-mail]>]

I recognize I don't participate on this list very often, but I also agree
with TLS 4.0 and Dan's argument. I teach an undergraduate security course
at Michigan; students have enough trouble keeping track of SSL vs TLS
versions as it is. Jumping to 4.0 allows us to end this versioning debacle
now.

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 6:04 PM Nick Sullivan <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> If we decide to move to some numeral higher than 3 to avoid confusion, I
> recommend *TLS 4*, but urge people to tell the story of the name in a way
> that retains some sense of continuity and logic.
>
> Here's a framing that makes sense:
>
> *TLS 4 is the fourth version of TLS*
> This framing will tell a positive message of progression, rather than
> embody a condescending message such as "we gave it this name because people
> aren't able to understand that TLS 1.3 is newer than SSL 3". It will also
> immediately make sense to people who were exposed to the marketing around
> Windows 7.
>
> Without this framing, TLS 4 (or 4.0) will seem like a confusing choice.
>
> (for the record, I'm still for TLS 1.3)
>
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:13 AM Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> At IETF 97, the chairs lead a discussion to resolve whether the WG should
> rebrand TLS1.3 to something else.  Slides can be found @
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-tls-rebranding-aka-pr612-01.pdf
> .
>
> The consensus in the room was to leave it as is, i.e., TLS1.3, and to not
> rebrand it to TLS 2.0, TLS 2, or TLS 4.  We need to confirm this decision
> on the list so please let the list know your top choice between:
>
> - Leave it TLS 1.3
> - Rebrand TLS 2.0
> - Rebrand TLS 2
> - Rebrand TLS 4
>
> by 2 December 2016.
>
> Thanks,
> J&S
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>