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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Thu, 21 August 2014 01:18 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4BAD1A004D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 18:18:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.568
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KDPohDq9lygG for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 18:18:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7E771A004B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 18:18:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 873D3BEF8; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 02:18:30 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MpxadDI3Nsj9; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 02:18:29 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.11] (unknown [86.42.28.232]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A440BEF3; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 02:18:29 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <53F548E5.2070208@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 02:18:29 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Subject: Re: Adept Encryption: Was: [saag] DANE should be more prominent (Re: Review of: Opportunistic Security -03 preview for comment)
References: <CAMm+Lwh1xzaxqqnnbdgFQrR0pWknsHru8zjnjCMVjihymXtKNw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LFD.2.10.1408202100590.6648@bofh.nohats.ca>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.10.1408202100590.6648@bofh.nohats.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/rzWy4E-KPSx0AofzMCdSVsNUhfI
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 01:18:33 -0000

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.