ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: draft-shirey-secgloss-v2-08.txt

2007-08-09 07:46:46
At 9:32 AM -0400 8/9/07, David Harrington wrote:
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.

Could you identify the specific I-D with which this mismatch between the 2828(bis) definition arises?

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 would not make that argument in general, because technologies very often assign special or narrow definitions for common English words. In the IETF context, "tunnel" might be a good example, "peer," etc.

Steve

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>