On Mon, 18 Aug 2014, Stephen Kent wrote:
Nico Williams wrote:
It's true that terminology matters, don't get me wrong, but you're
demanding a level of conflict-free terminology that is infeasible, while
at the same time failing to convince anyone that there's a problem here.
Really, "protocol design pattern" is problematic?!
yes, it is. it's yet another example where Viktor has chosen to
needlessly create a new term, which engenders confusion.
I cannot agree that "protocol design pattern" is "needlessly creat[ing] a
new term"; on the contrary, I think it is precisely the right term for
this document.
When trying to convey new concepts to an audience it's a good idea to use
existing terminology whenever possible. This doc is a poster boy for failing
in that regard.
I confess I do not remember what other cases of not reusing existing
terminology you have already pointed out earlier in the thread. Can I
trouble you to repeat a few of them?
The question is not "can you find some past usage of this or that term
that you can use to nitpick?". The question is: is the I-D clear?
That's an easy question to answer: NO, it is not clear.
I am forced to agree (roughly spreaking) -- the document does not
*clearly* state the points which are being expressed on the mailing list.
(I am working on some changes which help.) One thing in particular which
does stand out is "encryption" vs. "security", as Dave Crocker has pointed
out. I do not believe that the *only* thing the document covers is
encryption, but it does seem that encryption is given more weight than it
should for a document claiming to cover the more-generic "security".
In fact, Viktor's prose is needlessly verbose in many places. I provided
some examples of how to simplify it. This doc can be much better, and
not longer, if it were rewritten to be clear.
I agree that there are some places which are overly verbose and could be
reworked to be more clear. I will follow up with more concrete
suggestions when I am happy with them.
-Ben