> On Apr 5, 2021, at 5:12 PM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > What we actually can do is agree on good replacement terms for technology > that we own or considerably shape. Discussion whether MITM/Middleperson > attacks should be described as “on-path” attacks is very much on topic > for us — in the groups that own/shape that technology. If the new terms are more likely to be broadly understood than the old, which are parochial and confusing, great! I have no issue with improving terminology. The IETF should do that. But if the change is for highly speculative harms, aimed at purging old terms not because they're unclear, and the new ones are better, but because we're expecting thereby to redress societal ills, then I think we're sowing division in our midst in the name of harmony and inclusion, and this is not a wise course of action. -- Viktor.
