Talk:Convergence (SSL)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance. Convergence has been covered in Network World, Information Week, Dark Reading, The Register, and on numerous other blogs within the trade press. It has been adopted by notable security companies such as Qualys and The Intrepidus Group. Is it necessary to list all of this in the article? &mdash; Serge0981 (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it could help but, this article is not important enough to be a totally separate article. I suggest you merge this with another article.Gregory Heffley (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just putting together a stub. There is a lot of information that should be included in this: the protocol description, notary providers, and the proposed key pinning mechanisms. It has been reported that Convergence is already being incorporated into client side SSL libraries.  I'm not sure what other article would be appropriate to pollute with information about the Convergence system. --Serge0981 (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a combined article addressing Moxie Marlinspike, Whisper Systems, Convergence and his other projects? Shouran (talk) 06:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No way, if this article is to be merged with anything it should be the SSL article. However, I think that gathering the different possible evolutions of SSL in a single article would be best.  A quick scan of related articles turned up quite a few candidate stubs and SSL extensions in addition to convergence.


 * tcpcrypt
 * Obfuscated TCP
 * Multiplexed Transport Layer Security
 * Next Protocol Negotiation
 * Perspectives
 * DANE
 * HTTP Strict Transport Security
 * SCVP
 * Google Certificate Catalog

This is a very important subject, and worth keeping around. Please add to the list above, and provide a new synthesis article if you can! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indolering (talk • contribs) 18:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is an emerging and disruptive technology that solves a major problem for internet infrastructure. Considering the number of media sources that picked it up, this article would only be created again later if it were deleted. The technology works differently than Certificate Authority SSL, so this article needs to be expanded to explain the technology and not be merged with the other article. &mdash; DavidPesta (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They're are no third-party references and since when Youtube was a reliable source?Gregory Heffley (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Youtube Isn't the source, its just a location for his talk E123 (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an ongoing project with financial backing from the EFF and others. I would support creating a page devoted to SSL cert authority alternatives but deleting this entirely is a mistake.