Re: Adept Encryption: Was: [saag] DANE should be more prominent (Re: Review of: Opportunistic Security -03 preview for comment)

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On Thursday, August 21, 2014 02:18:29 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.
> 
> In fact, I'd say so its so negligible that attempting to find
> such (yet again, maybe for the 8th time?) is counterproductive.
> 
> But that doesn't stop folks genuinely trying seemingly, I guess
> its too tempting a windmill at which to tilt;-)
> 
> But I'd appeal to others to consider this before they chime in
> here: is your suggestion really that much better that everyone
> will immediately say "yeah, that's the one we wanted!"? If not,
> them maybe there's not much point in suggesting it.
> 
> S.

I think -03 was an improvement over -02, but I think we're in danger of 
regressing.  I was able to find time to give the diff of the rewritten draft 
someone posted a quick read and my overall impression was that it did not 
represent progress.

That's an overly terse comment for the amount of effort that went into it, but 
that's all I have time for.

I think -03 does a reasonably good job of describing OS and we should call it  
mostly done.  

Scott K