Apologies for yet another mail on the OS draft, but I just noticed this sub-thread was only on saag, and it needs to be here too. For context, Steve K's suggest edits used OCS as a change from OS, and I wanted to try avoid loads of mail if folks only wanted to express a new opinion on that single aspect. Ta, S. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [saag] DANE should be more prominent (Re: Review of: Opportunistic Security -03 preview for comment) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 16:11:22 +0100 From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> To: Stephen Kent <kent@xxxxxxx>, saag@xxxxxxxx Steve, Ben, With no hats, I prefer OS to OCS myself. Can't recall if I said that on list before or not, sorry;-) Wearing my "will have to figure out rough consensus" hat - let's not debate that again, I think everyone who stated a position on it was already clear, so I can't imagine what's left to be said. But if someone who's not yet stated an opinion wants to, that'd be fine. And since this is a straight forward OCS vs OS thing, sending to me (and say Paul H. as shepherd) offlist is fine and I'll summarise any offlist mails I get on this when we're done (incl. email addresses, so no cheating:-) Cheers, S. On 20/08/14 16:03, Stephen Kent wrote: > Ben, > > You noted my use of the phrase "Opportunistic Crypto-Secruity" instead > of "Opportunistic Secruity." > I made the change after someone else suggested it as a more precise > description of what we're > doing, and because it has the advantage of being represented by an > acronym that isn't so common > (OCS vs. OS) in our arena. > > Steve > > _______________________________________________ > saag mailing list > saag@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag > > _______________________________________________ saag mailing list saag@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag