On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:22:22AM -0700, Martin Thomson wrote:
On 30 July 2014 08:54, Stephen Kent <kent(_at_)bbn(_dot_)com> wrote:
I would say:
"OS strives to greatly broaden the use of encryption in IETF protocols,
to combat PM. To facilitate incremental deployment, OS operates in
a fashion that may result in a plaintext connection/session."
That's a good description of OE, but wasn't the whole point of using
OS as the term to cover other opportunistic mechanisms, like maybe
opportunistic authentication (which I just invented, but I hope is
self-explanatory).
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 04:15:47PM -0400, Stephen Kent wrote:
I don't think so.
I am not sure what the "I don't think so" refers to. If it is a
response to the question of whether the term "OS" was chosen
specifically to be more open-ended, then it depends on whom you
ask. On the one hand a key constraint was to avoid using "OE"
which was already taken, so one might narrowly say that this is
the reason for the choice. On the other hand, as the person who
advocated most strongly for this choice I did in fact have in mind
a definition that is more open-ended than than mere encryption when
possible.
And that more open-ended view is a key feature of the resulting
draft.
--
Viktor.