On 8/6/2014 7:00 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > However I *really* do not think we'd be wise to re-start the work > looking for a new term or a new meaning so I won't comment on > your suggestions along those lines. Stephen, That type of response represents what is called a 'sunk cost' error. It entails continuing with a problematic choice because of its time in service, rather than switching to a better choice, in the false belief that the problematic issues can be resolved. The problems with the term 'opportunistic security' are multiple, serious and inherent. What happens with sunk cost errors is that the folks working closely on the topic become attached to it and are frankly unrealistic about how deep and intractable the problems are. In the case of a vocabulary exercise, as we are having here, folks in the core effort get comfortable with some sort of shared 'sense' of things and miss the fact that even that vague sense will be missing when the rest of the world uses the term. Instead, the rest of the world will spontaneously and repeatedly invent whatever suits it. Your citing a scope of use as IETF-ish folk represents the problem. We must not be an enclave. So what we are going to get is a term that has no obvious and clear meaning. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net