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

I believe we should make it out of wood. It's a renewable resource and, if
well-treated, will be more than adequate for keeping the effects of weather
off the cycles stored inside.

On 24 March 2018 at 11:27, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
wrote:

> Thanks for all the work that has gone into the proposed MLS architecture
> and protocol drafts already.
>
> As we move toward working group formation, i'm a little bit concerned
> that the ostensible name of the project ("message layer security")
> doesn't adequately describe the most salient features.
>
> We spent most of the time at the BoF in IETF 101 London talking about
> the design of the group key agreement scheme and the strong
> cryptographic properties we want it to provide -- and i suspect that
> most of the work in any formed WG will center around that problem.
>
> So it seems odd to me that the word "group" doesn't appear in the name
> "MLS".
>
> I'm no good at acronyms, but i'll just throw out two alternatives:
>
>   MSG: Messaging Security for Groups
>
>   MESSAGE: Message Encryption and Security Standard for Asynchronous Group
> Environments
>
> I hope since the WG isn't yet formed, it's not too late to consider a
> change to the name.  We ought to be up front about the group-specific
> context that we're talking about here, as we already have a security
> layer that works for messages passing between two endpoints
> synchronously (TLS) and it'd be nice to clearly carve up the territory.
>
>         --dkg
>
> _______________________________________________
> MLS mailing list
> MLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mls
>
>