On Tue, 19 Aug 2014, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
I'm happy to see that Steve's proposal shares a fair bit of structure with
the changes I have been making, in particular the breakdown into
"determine the peer's capabilities" and then "figure out what to actually
do given that information", which I think is key to helping readers
understand things.
Steve is being very aggressive about reducing verbosity; I'll need a
closer read to see how much of that I agree with.
One thing that I do see from a quick skim is the change to "Opportunistic
Crypto-Security (OCS)" instead of the existing "Opportunistic Security".
I don't think that Viktor (or the group) is likely to adopt that without
the sense that we have a consensus for that term.
Thanks for the rewrite, I look forward to reading it more carefully.
Having gotten a chance to read it more carefully, I offer some general
comments. There doesn't seem much point in offering specific comments,
since Viktor still needs to integrate the proposal and things may change
in that process.
I generally agree with the new text, and find that it adequately
represents my understanding of what has been proposed and fleshed out in
our discussions on the list. The text is a bit stiff in some places, and
perhaps overly concise, but on the whole still represents an improvement.
I don't think I would object to publishing this text on the grounds that
it is poorly written.
I forget if I have opined on the list about OS vs. OCS or OE or other
terms already, but I will just say that I prefer OS over any of the other
proposals I have seen.
Thanks again for writing this up, Steve.
-Ben