Subject: [saag] Proposal: use OE for now (Re: better ** terminology)

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 18:58:38 -0500

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Stephen Kent <[email-masked]> wrote:
> [...]

It's good to see that we agree on the rationale for a term like
"opportunistic foo".  You don't yet agree as to actually using
"opportunistic foo", but in time you will ;)

More seriously, I propose the following:

 - _for the time being_ we should use "opportunistic encryption" to
refer to the new thing in Internet-Drafts and on the relevant mailing
lists

 - commit to reaching out to language specialists and/or to surveying
the public prior to publication as an RFC on the Standards track.

(I really do think this is important enough to warrant a more
scientific approach to naming this beast.  Conversely I am not
convinced that my own preference and logic behind it will work best in
the long haul, and that self-doubt leads me to wanting more input.)

The rough consensus certainly seems to be that no term proposed until
now is quite as good an option as "opportunistic encryption", so I
don't see the harm in settling on that in the interim.  And I see much
good in doing so: we'd stop spending so much effort on naming and move
on to more substantive matters.

Nico
--

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 12:01:26 -0400

Nico,
> "opportunistic foo", but in time you will ;)
yes I can feel it growing on me :-).
> on to more substantive matters.
As I noted, the IETF published an RFC that defined the term, and folks
outside of the IETF have made use of it, often in ways consistent with
the 4322 definition. As a result, it strikes me as irresponsible to
redefine the term just because a lot of folks who were not familiar
with 4322 began using the term.

A branding campaign seems very "un-IETF-like" and so if folks choose
to pursue that I hope its done externally.

Steve