>>>>> "David" == David Harrington <ietfdbh@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
David> Hi, The issue was raised during ISMS WGLC that there is a
David> difference between our use of the word authenticate and the
David> glossary in RFC2828. Since ISMS extends SNMPv3, ISMS is
David> using terminology consistent with the SNMPv3 standard,
David> which reflects English usage.
First, I'll only speak to 2828; 2828bis is not an IETF product and I
disclaim all interest in it.
David> I think re-defining the word authenticate is not a good
David> idea. I think it will not help the IETF write clear and
David> unambiguous specifications to redefine words for IETF usage
David> that are already clearly defined in English. if we want new
David> keywords, then the IETF should invent new terms, not
David> redefine existing terms.
It's my understanding that the definition of authenticate in 28282 is
a subset of the English definition. If you don't think that is the
case I'd like to hear your reasoning.
David> I encourage the security community to provide an
David> informational glossary. I recommend that if a document
David> author wants to use terminology consistent with RFC2828bis,
David> they should state that, and list the specific
David> RFC28282bis-consistent terms used in their document in a
David> "Terminology" section.
Agreed.
David> But I do not think the glossary terms should be required
David> usage in the IETF,
They are not required usage. However to the extent that they are
agreed usage (and I think 2828 basically is), you need to have a good
reason for using a different definition of the same word. "Please be
consistent with the terminology we tend to be using elsewhere" is a
reasonable (and often blocking) comment to make on a document. There
are valid reasons to disagree with such a comment.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf