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

[David Woodhouse <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, 2016-11-18 at 13:19 -0800, Vlad Krasnov wrote:
> > Well, for example, your website has twice as many mentions of SSL
> > as TLS.  Why?  Why don't you have a product called "Universal TLS"?
> > The ratio is the same for letsencrypto.org. TLS 1.0 had already
> > existed for more then a decade before either place existed.  BTW,
> > at google, it's 20:1, and that's just google, not the web.  (Counts
> > were done in the obvious dumb way "site:letsencrypt.org tls" and
> > then with "ssl" and noting the summary stats at the top of the
> > return results.) 
> > 
> > People are confused because we treat them as the same thing. 
> 
> Well, if the result of the confusion would be people *disabling* TLS
> 1.* in favor of SSL 3.0, they would discover very quickly what is
> TLS, and why no major browser works for them.

We already have a bunch of confusion around "SSL" vs. "TLS". Many mail
clients seems to allow you to configure SMTP/IMAP servers to be
accessed over "SSL", which means TLS, or "TLS", which means it connects
in the clear and then negotiates an upgrade with STARTTLS.

-- 
dwmw2