Subject: [ietf-tls] Re: London

From: "Mark Nottingham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 19:50:53 -0800

There's a difference between jumping between what are perceived as two
different protocols (even though they're similar) and jumping versions
(especially away from 1.0). Yes, this is just a perception thing, but that's
part of what versioning is about.

Also, I'm concerned about user identification of the capabilities of a
browser or other product; I'm not too optimistic about MS or anyone else
clearly labeling their product as "TLS plus extensions foo, bar and baz";
while they'll be more apt to state "TLS 1.1" once they're compliant.

In the case of dns_name, CDNs will want to use it ASAP. If some clients are
clearly labeled (as above), CDN and other virtual hosters can have their
customers specify the use of such browsers; otherwise, there will be
significant overhead in identifying the appropriate products to use.

Cheers,

> > Rationale: a version rev is more visible, and more likely to get wide
> > adoption in clients, which is needed to make dns_name worthwhile.
>
> I don't find this rationale particularly convincing. In my
> experience, implementors feel almost no pressure to upgrade their
> implementations to newer versions. Look how long it took Microsoft
> and Netscape to upgrade from SSLv3 to TLS.
>
> If there's a lot of market demand for dns_name then implementors
> will put it in whether it's a new version or not. If there's no
> demand then incrementing the version number will make almost
> no difference.

---
You are currently subscribed to ietf-tls as: [email-masked]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email-masked]