On 7/5/2016 10:52 AM, Black, David wrote:
> Like Kyle, I'm also uncomfortable with the use of the word "spec."
>
> How about "mechanism" instead? That enables separation between
> - Encryption mechanism (what is done to produce the bits "on the wire")
> - Specification of an encryption mechanism or encryption mechanism
> spec[ification] (what's in the doc)
>
> The latter specifications are actually protocol specifications (e.g., they
> include
> key exchange in addition to encryption).
FWIW,:
1) protocols are more than just what's "on the wire"
They are the sum of the state machine on each end, the interfaces to
layers above and below, and the messages (on the wire).
2) a specification is a *description* of a protocol, algorithm, or mechanism
It is distinct from the concept thereof and the implementations thereof.
We tend to refer directly to the protocol/algorithm/mechanism
(unless we're updating a spec thereof).
3) I agree the doc uses "spec" to mean too many things:
- TCP option variant
- security transform (from IPsec, i.e., algorithm)
- security association (from IPsec, i.e., transform and its
configuration parameters for a given TCP connection)
I would suggest using different terms as needed in different places, and
copying the terms from IPsec where relevant here.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Tcpinc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
