Re: [TLS] RESOLVED (Re: [sasl] lasgt call comments (st Call: draft-altman-tls-channel-bindings (Channel Bindings for TLS) to Proposed Standard))

Nicolas Williams <> Wed, 04 November 2009 18:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABBFF3A68CB; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 10:38:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.045
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.045 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F7V1T7EvW6gp; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 10:38:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (sca-ea-mail-2.Sun.COM []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 355453A67AF; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 10:38:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id nA4IcXEo015656; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:38:34 GMT
Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (binky.Central.Sun.COM []) by (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id nA4IcXeM009722; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:38:33 -0700 (MST)
Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (localhost []) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nA4IR4jc008279; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:27:04 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from nw141292@localhost) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3/Submit) id nA4IR4if008278; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:27:04 -0600 (CST)
X-Authentication-Warning: binky.Central.Sun.COM: nw141292 set sender to using -f
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:27:04 -0600
From: Nicolas Williams <>
To: Michael D'Errico <>
Message-ID: <20091104182704.GA1105@Sun.COM>
References: <> <> <20091030223647.GO1105@Sun.COM> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.7i
Subject: Re: [TLS] RESOLVED (Re: [sasl] lasgt call comments (st Call: draft-altman-tls-channel-bindings (Channel Bindings for TLS) to Proposed Standard))
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:38:18 -0000

On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 10:24:29AM -0800, Michael D'Errico wrote:
> I don't pretend to know exactly what this feature is supposed to do,
> but I think using the word "connection" would be a mistake given its
> widespread use meaning TCP connections, etc.

At least the word 'connection' is used in RFC5246 _some_ times to mean
what we were using it to mean here.

> Perhaps using a different word such as "link" would portray the
> meaning you want without causing confusion?

'Link' is even worse.

We'll probably have to include our own definition in the I-D.

The fact that certain words are overloaded does not mean that they
cannot be used.  This is a fact of life in Internet standards, that
terminology varies significantly, and often overlaps, between areas, and
even within areas.  One way to avoid confusion is to indicate, in each
context, the source of one's terminology, and to clarify whenever one
must refer to multiple documents with conflicting terminologies.
Another way is to invent new terminology whenever conflicts arise.  The
latter is very difficult to do and to popularize.  The former requires
discipline.  I prefer the former.