Re: [MLS] MLS: the WG name should include "group"

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

Many people have allergic reactions to MSG. ;-)

On 7/19/18 5:11 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> I don't have strong feelings here.  I'm not wedded to MLS, but I don't
> want to move from that to something lame :)  MLS has the benefit of
> getting some "trustiness" from the resonance with TLS, and we already
> have the top Google hits for "MLS protocol".  I'm not sure MSG is enough
> better to motivate a change.
> 
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 6:51 PM Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     +1
>     On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 6:43 PM Jon Millican <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>     >
>     > This discussion came up again at the hackathon, and I think there
>     was a fair bit of sympathy for the idea of at least changing the
>     protocol name to MSG; for the reasons described in this thread.
>     >
>     > Personally I'd be keen to have something slightly more uniquely
>     Googleable than MSG, but I don't think that MLS is any better in
>     this regard.
>     >
>     > On 27/03/2018, 19:03, "MLS on behalf of
>     [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of
>     [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>     >
>     >     +1
>     >
>     >     Quoting Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>:
>     >     > On Sun 2018-03-25 21:33:42 +0200, Nadim Kobeissi wrote:
>     >     >> I do not believe the name should be changed:
>     >     >>
>     >     >> 1. MLS is a protocol that is equally suited for pairwise
>     messaging
>     >     >> as it is for group messaging
>     >     >> 2. The MLS name is elegant and mirrors TLS..
>     >     >
>     >     > "Mirroring TLS" is exactly what i'm afraid of.  This is a
>     radically
>     >     > different protocol, performing demonstrably different work at a
>     >     > different position within the stack, with a different view
>     on what
>     >     > interoperability even means.
>     >     >
>     >     > Let's make it very clear that this *is not* TLS, and that it
>     is not a
>     >     > substitute for TLS.
>     >     >
>     >     > The protocol described in the documents is *not*
>     equally-suited for
>     >     > pairwise messaging -- it has a number of subtle features
>     that are
>     >     > included solely because it is intended to handle group
>     messaging.  As
>     >     > other people have written upthread, the protocol this
>     nascent WG aims to
>     >     > describe will handle pairwise messaging as a special case of
>     group
>     >     > messaging.  It is not designed intentionally for pairwise
>     messaging and
>     >     > if it were, it would have a different design.
>     >     >
>     >     >           --dkg
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >     _______________________________________________
>     >     MLS mailing list
>     >     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     >   
>      https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_mls&d=DwICAg&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=M0CVEJydBVUX_bvEqMa84Q&m=rfhSuK8vpcpFLcVQ8OMeZLwppm8O9uVb1XZ27wXlf60&s=BQG3-r7qCBQlhrrPGVNVJj6heSZcsNivR8jfE1ZmqzY&e=
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > MLS mailing list
>     > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mls
> 
> 
> 
>     -- 
>     Joseph Lorenzo Hall
>     Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology
>     [https://www.cdt.org]
>     1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 20005-3497
>     e: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>, p: 202..407.8825, pgp:
>     https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
>     Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10  1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     MLS mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mls
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MLS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mls
>