Apologies for yet another mail on the OS draft, but I
just noticed this sub-thread was only on saag, and it
needs to be here too.
For context, Steve K's suggest edits used OCS as a change
from OS, and I wanted to try avoid loads of mail if folks
only wanted to express a new opinion on that single aspect.
Ta,
S.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [saag] DANE should be more prominent (Re: Review of:
Opportunistic Security -03 preview for comment)
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 16:11:22 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie>
To: Stephen Kent <kent(_at_)bbn(_dot_)com>, saag(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Steve, Ben,
With no hats, I prefer OS to OCS myself. Can't recall if I said
that on list before or not, sorry;-)
Wearing my "will have to figure out rough consensus" hat - let's
not debate that again, I think everyone who stated a position on
it was already clear, so I can't imagine what's left to be said.
But if someone who's not yet stated an opinion wants to, that'd
be fine. And since this is a straight forward OCS vs OS thing,
sending to me (and say Paul H. as shepherd) offlist is fine and
I'll summarise any offlist mails I get on this when we're done
(incl. email addresses, so no cheating:-)
Cheers,
S.
On 20/08/14 16:03, Stephen Kent wrote:
Ben,
You noted my use of the phrase "Opportunistic Crypto-Secruity" instead
of "Opportunistic Secruity."
I made the change after someone else suggested it as a more precise
description of what we're
doing, and because it has the advantage of being represented by an
acronym that isn't so common
(OCS vs. OS) in our arena.
Steve
_______________________________________________
saag mailing list
saag(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag
_______________________________________________
saag mailing list
saag(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag