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. 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 encourage the security community to provide an informational glossary. I recommend that if a document author wants to use terminology consistent with RFC2828bis, they should state that, and list the specific RFC28282bis-consistent terms used in their document in a "Terminology" section. But I do not think the glossary terms should be required usage in the IETF, and if a document does use the RFC2828(bis) definitions, then I think it would be a bad idea to simply claim consistency with RFC2828bis. It will be tremendously hard to verify that every word or phrase covered in RFC2828(bis) is used correctly in the document claiming consistency with RFC2828(bis). It is already hard to verify that MUST/SHOULD/MAY are used correctly per RFC2119, and RFC2828bis has 300 pages of definitions, re-definitions, and phrases. David Harrington dbharrington@xxxxxxxxxxx ietfdbh@xxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf