Hi Dave, Just on this point (I think on the others there's just not much more to say:-) On 24/10/14 15:41, Dave Crocker wrote: > > (What is ironic about your vocabulary objection is how comfortable you > remain with use of the word 'security' in 'opportunistic security' in > spite of its having no precise meaning and long-established usage that > is ambiguous and wrong. Even better is that the actual substance of the > draft using the term is only about encryption. So you are equating > encryption and security, which is a particularly unfortunate ambiguation...) I think that Viktor's draft does define the OS term sufficiently well. This draft deliberately does not define the meaning of safe, and is not needed for, or possibly very slightly damaging to, interop. OS OTOH explicitly aims for and will help with better interop. So I see no irony, but I think I can see how you might, given the way in which you and I seem to disagree about the OS draft. S. >