At 9:32 AM -0400 8/9/07, David Harrington wrote:
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.
Could you identify the specific I-D with which this mismatch between the 2828(bis) definition arises?
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 would not make that argument in general, because technologies very often assign special or narrow definitions for common English words. In the IETF context, "tunnel" might be a good example, "peer," etc.
Steve _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf