On 8/20/2014 6:18 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > Personally, I think the probability that we suddenly discover any > significantly better term is negligible. Not because OS is > super-good, but rather because nothing is super-good. And > good-enough should be good-enough here. While there has been repeated, quick dismissal of alternative terms, I don't recall seeing a careful consideration of candidates, with a clear explanation for the choice(s) made, making clear why it is better (or why its deficiencies are less onerous than those of the alternatives.) The problems with 'opportunistic' and with 'security', relative to the actual content of this draft, have been pointed out repeatedly. They are significant. Rather than again casually waving away a suggested alternative, could we see a summary consideration of choices, please? > In fact, I'd say so its so negligible that attempting to find such > (yet again, maybe for the 8th time?) is counterproductive. This suggests a view that vocabulary choice does not matter all that much. For an audience of technical insiders, that's probably true. Provide definitions and those folk will adjust. For a wider audience, words carry quite a lot of baggage and so the choice of terminology matters. Confusing adept and adapt is an example of this latter case. So is the considerable ambiguity of the word 'security'. > But that doesn't stop folks genuinely trying seemingly, I guess its > too tempting a windmill at which to tilt;-) Here again, Stephen, one would not expect the cognizant AD to be so readily directive and dismissive of points being raised seriously and by a range of different contributors. The mere fact that there is such a broad and persistent base of concern with 'opportunistic security' warrants taking the issue far more seriously. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net