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

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Stephen Farrell
<[e-mail]> 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.

+1.

OS is not an awesome term.  My hope is that OS will become part of the
broader culture, just like "SSL" and "TLS".  That means that the term
has to be accessible, even if that means it has to be terse.  If OS
does not become part of the broader culture then the term won't burden
us much more than any other term we could pick instead, because it
will at the very least become part of IETF culture.

Once we're accustomed to a term, the fact that others could have been
picked becomes mostly unimportant, and any imperfections of the term
we do pick will not be a burden (because we'll be used to them).

> In fact, I'd say so its so negligible that attempting to find
> such (yet again, maybe for the 8th time?) is counterproductive.

Near as I can tell there are no remaining substantive objections to
Viktor's draft, only ones related to wordsmithing, writing style, and
the name we'll give to this concept.  All of these are a flavor of
bikeshedding.  We should stop arguing about such things, make just one
more small effort to adjust Viktor's prose, and publish.

Nico
--