> In particular, Section 4.3 of RFC6126 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6126#section-4.3
> the authentication I-D currently reuses these in a workable way http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ovsienko-babel-hmac-authentication-03 > In particular, in the protocol extension I-D respective terms right > now are "base length" and "extension data". http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chroboczek-babel-extension-mechanism-00 > Could you share your opinion if one of the two ways looks notably > better than the other and why? The terms under discussion are: ------------------------------+------------------------------------------- RFC 6126 | draft-chroboczek-babel-extension-mechanism draft-ovsienko-babel-hmac-authentication ------------------------------+------------------------------------------- original protocol | base protocol extra data | extension data expected length | base length ------------------------------+------------------------------------------- I'm not planning to update RFC 6126, but I'd really like draft...extension-mechanism and draft...authentication to use the same terminology. -- Juliusz _______________________________________________ Babel-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
