IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com> Wed, 31 August 2016 08:48 UTC

Return-Path: <hkario@redhat.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC2C312DA33 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 01:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.964
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.964 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=1.506] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LEJvLKsLi3Oi for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 01:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5006412DA3A for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 01:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8E164E4CC; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 08:48:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pintsize.usersys.redhat.com (dhcp-0-191.brq.redhat.com [10.34.0.191]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u7V8mC4h015941 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 31 Aug 2016 04:48:13 -0400
From: Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com>
To: Xiaoyin Liu <xiaoyin.l@outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 10:47:59 +0200
Message-ID: <3453142.248EJ6K14H@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com>
User-Agent: KMail/5.2.3 (Linux/4.6.7-300.fc24.x86_64; KDE/5.25.0; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CY1PR15MB07780CDB0A0EC9FD5FA4DF05FFE00@CY1PR15MB0778.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
References: <201608301419.33620.davemgarrett@gmail.com> <2135572.Ea2pKTvtKx@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> <CY1PR15MB07780CDB0A0EC9FD5FA4DF05FFE00@CY1PR15MB0778.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2202313.4GiWJ3qK4H"; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.24
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.38]); Wed, 31 Aug 2016 08:48:13 +0000 (UTC)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/vdQ9Imzvb3Sv7NspMMYLHTo-vnw>
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0?
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 08:48:16 -0000

On Tuesday, 30 August 2016 22:20:45 CEST Xiaoyin Liu wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: TLS [mailto:tls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hubert Kario
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 4:14 PM
> > To: tls@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0?
> > 
> > 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
> 
> 
> I don't think this is a problem. People will forget "TLS 1.3" and will only
> remember "TLS 2.0" after some time.

well, that's not the experience of our support engineers, people still confuse 
SSLv3 with TLSv<any>

if the WG really wants a TLSvX.0 name, the X really should be bigger than 3

-- 
Regards,
Hubert Kario
Senior Quality Engineer, QE BaseOS Security team
Web: www.cz.redhat.com
Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkyňova 99/71, 612 45, Brno, Czech Republic

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email