Hi,
The issue was raised during ISMS WGLC that there is a difference
between our use of the word authenticate and the glossary in RFC2828.
Since ISMS extends SNMPv3, ISMS is using terminology consistent with
the SNMPv3 standard, which reflects English usage.
I think re-defining the word authenticate is not a good idea. I think
it will not help the IETF write clear and unambiguous specifications
to redefine words for IETF usage that are already clearly defined in
English. if we want new keywords, then the IETF should invent new
terms, not redefine existing terms.
I encourage the security community to provide an informational
glossary. I recommend that if a document author wants to use
terminology consistent with RFC2828bis, they should state that, and
list the specific RFC28282bis-consistent terms used in their document
in a "Terminology" section.
But I do not think the glossary terms should be required usage in the
IETF, and if a document does use the RFC2828(bis) definitions, then I
think it would be a bad idea to simply claim consistency with
RFC2828bis. It will be tremendously hard to verify that every word or
phrase covered in RFC2828(bis) is used correctly in the document
claiming consistency with RFC2828(bis). It is already hard to verify
that MUST/SHOULD/MAY are used correctly per RFC2119, and RFC2828bis
has 300 pages of definitions, re-definitions, and phrases.
David Harrington
dbharrington(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net
ietfdbh(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf