Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

In physical locks, the master is the common key. It doesn’t control the other keys. 

In crypto, the master is the root or primary; others are child or derivatives. It doesn’t ‘control’ them either. 

Most crypto texts and docs need to explain that because it’s not understood from the terms alone. 

Joe 

> On Aug 9, 2020, at 12:50 PM, Dan Harkins <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/9/20 12:23 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>> On Aug 9, 2020, at 10:54 AM, Nico Williams <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>  Really, asserting that "master secret"
>>> is problematic is simply credibility-destroying.
>> Besides your concern, how does one secret actively control another?
>> 
>> Or is it just that there is one root key from which others are derived?
>> 
>> Ie why even bother defending a term that’s inaccurate to start?
> 
>   It's not inaccurate.
> 
>   In locksmithing a "master key" is one that opens all the doors while a
> non-master key (which is not called a "slave key" by the way) only opens
> the door it is milled for.
> 
>   Analogously, in cryptology a key can be a "master key" if possession of
> it can be used to decrypt all the different traffic flows and a non-master
> key (which is also not called a "slave key") only decrypts the flow it
> was generated for. It's a great term.
> 
>   You can even get key hierarchies and the analogy holds. There could be
> one key for all doors in the building and separate keys for all doors on
> particular floors and then keys that are specific for particular doors.
> Similarly you could have a key that could be used to decrypt all flows on
> all cluster members, a separate key that could be used to decrypt all
> flows on one cluster, and flow-specific keys that just decrypt one
> individual flow on one cluster. It's a great term.
> 
>   Asserting that use of "master key" or "master secret" is a problem or
> that it somehow "discourages participation in the IETF" (which is what has
> been asserted for this new category of Problematic Words) is absurd!
> 
>   Dan.
> 
>