----- Original Message ----- From: "der Mouse" <mouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <ietf-http-auth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <saag@xxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; <ietf-http-wg@xxxxxx> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 4:14 PM Subject: Re: [saag] Next step on web phishing draft(draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt) > > I really dislike the use of "fishing" with creative spelling in a > > document prepared for an international standards organization. > > Perhaps unfortunately, that is *the* word for the behaviour in > question, at least in English. It was not invented for the draft, and > "com[ing] up with something [else]" would be *less* descriptive and > would render the document cryptic to the people who's been working > against phishing for years. Perhaps it's a bad word to use in other > languages, but that should be addressed by the translator(s) in > question, not by mangling the original. > Stick the word in quotes which conveys the message that we know that this is not a good piece of terminology, but that we are pragmatic enough to recognise that using it will convey the right meaning to most people. But on the other strand under this Subject:, I am with those who think that the IETF has demonstrated an absence of consensus and that the proposed way forward to try and achieve it by other means in plain wrong. Tom Petch _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf