Hiya, (Bcc'ing dane and saag for reasons that'll become obvious:-)
On 03/11/2014 09:53 PM, Stephen Kent wrote: > I prefer that we stick with that definition of the term, > which is IPsec-specific. I don't think we need to face any such constraint at all. We might choose to, but there's no reason our definitions need to honor previous ones since any use of the OE term will conflict with someone's understanding. I also don't want us to end up with IPsec (or TLS) specific terminology. > I have suggested "opportunistic keying" as a > preferred term, since > its the key management, not the encryption per se, that distinguishes > other proposed modes of > operation for IPsec, TLS, etc. The breakout group at the STRINT workshop > that discussed terminology > suggested using the term noted above. I agree the OK term is better for the reasons you state. (And Pete Resnick likes the idea of OK protocols:-) If/when we re-do the MPLS thing we'll move to use that and I think it'll be useful if other folks do too. And speaking of terminology, I canvassed a few folks last week and there was reasonable support for doing the draft that defines these terms within the UTA WG. So I'd suggest we move the discussion there if that's ok just to try get it in one place. S. _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
