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

I'm also very supportive for the reasons you outline.

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.

Another reason to avoid 1.3 is Western culture negative connotations around
"tls13" which TLS 1.3 will get abbreviated as.

- Erik

     [Sent from my IPv6 connected T-Mobile 4G LTE mobile device]

On Aug 30, 2016 3:35 PM, "Dave Garrett" <davemgarrett@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 02:36:51 pm Xiaoyin Liu wrote:
> > I support this change as long as there is no technical change (version
> ID remains 0x0304).
>
> To reiterate, I am also against changing the version ID. However, I do
> think it's worth updating the context string version number, otherwise it'd
> be a little unnecessarily confusing there. (trivial change to key
> derivation, but not wire format) I've also made a point to tweak references
> to the on-the-wire version value to refer to it as a "version ID" rather
> than just version, to make it very clear that this is really just an
> arbitrary codepoint and shouldn't be read as 3.4.
>
> I've made the changes for a WIP branch, here (not a PR, as of yet):
> https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/compare/master...
> davegarrett:tls2rebranding
>
> Going through the motions of doing the renaming now is useful to see if
> there's anything that is more affected than initially expected, such as the
> context strings having the version in there directly as a string (they're
> designed to be updated as-needed, so this shouldn't be a problem).
>
>
> Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>