On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 05:23:11PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 8/15/2014 2:36 PM, Stephen Kent wrote: > > I’m not fond of the phrase “protocol design pattern”. I don’t recall > > ever hearing that phrase before. If you substituted “guidelines” or > > “principle” for pattern that would be more in keeping with existing > > terminology. > > I was surprised by the term, but mostly felt it was at least trying to > move discussion in a useful direction, compared with earlier claims, > such as that it was a 'protocol'. > > However a quick search on the term produced some troubling existing > usages that conflict with the usage in the draft: Bikeshedding is what this is. I'm under no illusions as to having a single dictionary of terminology in such a large group. In fact, I've no patience for these games; I recall vividly Stephen Kent trying to school me as to the meaning of "network authentication", whereupon I had to point him to the very TITLE of RFC1510 (fun times). It's true that terminology matters, don't get me wrong, but you're demanding a level of conflict-free terminology that is infeasible, while at the same time failing to convince anyone that there's a problem here. Really, "protocol design pattern" is problematic?! The question is not "can you find some past usage of this or that term that you can use to nitpick?". The question is: is the I-D clear? IMO: the I-D is quite clear. Serious arguments otherwise would be nice; text nice still. Another question, even more important, is whether OS (the proposed protocol design pattern, not the term) is on the right path or whether it is dangerous, or how to improve it. I've yet to see anargument that Viktor's OS proposal is weak tea, dangerous, or could be improved, only lots and lots of verbiage about verbiage. Nico --