Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0?

Rob Stradling <rob.stradling@comodo.com> Tue, 30 August 2016 21:04 UTC

To: tls@ietf.org
References: <201608301419.33620.davemgarrett@gmail.com> <2135572.Ea2pKTvtKx@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com>
From: Rob Stradling <rob.stradling@comodo.com>
Message-ID: <e531b567-cb92-769d-bf77-5f2ef98714ab@comodo.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 22:04:20 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2135572.Ea2pKTvtKx@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/bg3nQDCyB48y7F-oL-DPP-_sl4Y>
Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0?
Precedence: list

On 30/08/16 21:14, Hubert Kario wrote:
> On Tuesday, 30 August 2016 14:19:33 CEST Dave Garrett wrote:
>> * Keep the version ID as { 3, 4 } (already weird counting; changing risks
>> more intolerance)
>
> IMNSHO this alone is enough of a reason not to do this
>
> it's enough explaining to people that SSLv3.3 is really TLSv1.2, now we'll
> have SSLv3.4 == TLSv1.3 == TLSv2.0
>
> it's silly at this point

It's been silly for nearly two decades already!

https://plus.google.com/+IlyaGrigorik/posts/BesDRVDqB4h

So...

On 30/08/16 21:20, Erik Nygren wrote:
<snip>
>> However, I think we should consider calling it TLS 4 or TLS 4.0 or TLS 5.
>>
>> In particular, much of the non-technical audience still calls it "SSL"
>> (pet peeve of many of us, I suspect) and having a version number clearly
>> greater than SSLv3 and not confusing with SSLv2 would be quite
>> valuable.  "TLS 2" may have risk for unfortunate confusions with SSLv2
>> and SSLv3.

How about we drop the "TLS" name completely, and simply call it "SSLv4" 
or "SSLv5" ?  Then the non-technical audience that still calls it "SSL" 
would magically become correct again.  :-)

Returning to a previous name seems to be trendy at the moment...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS

-- 
Rob Stradling
Senior Research & Development Scientist
COMODO - Creating Trust Online

Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Andrei Popov
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Peter Gutmann
[TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Dave Garrett
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Xiaoyin Liu
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Dave Garrett
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Hubert Kario
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Erik Nygren
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Rob Stradling
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Xiaoyin Liu
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Julien ÉLIE
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Peter Gutmann
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Hubert Kario
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Xiaoyin Liu
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Hubert Kario
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Daniel Kahn Gillmor
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Salz, Rich
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Yoav Nir
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? =JeffH
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Brian Sniffen
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Andrei Popov
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Yoav Nir
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Dave Garrett
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Bill Frantz
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Nick Sullivan
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Erik Nygren
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Dave Garrett
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Richard Barnes
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Dave Garrett
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Eric Mill
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Judson Wilson
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Adam Caudill
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Dave Garrett
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Yoav Nir
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Peter Gutmann
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0? Colm MacCárthaigh