Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0?
From: Hubert Kario <[email-masked]>
To: Xiaoyin Liu <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 10:47:59 +0200
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>

On Tuesday, 30 August 2016 22:20:45 CEST Xiaoyin Liu wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: TLS [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Hubert Kario
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 4:14 PM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > 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