Hi, > Paul Wouters writes: > > On Sun, 15 Dec 2024, Valery Smyslov wrote: > > > So, my question: what term should we use to be aligned with RFC > > > 4301-4303 and to not confuse readers? Perhaps this is a > > > bikeshedding, but an important one. > > Oh, my shepherd writeup already mentions this: > > 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there > decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? > > Because this is about naming, everybody has their own views what > color the bike shed should be, so there were several proposals for > the new name. > > Everybody agreed that old name was bad, and in the end we found > acceptable name. > > So now we just need to find acceptable name :-)
That is the hardest task :-) > > It seems that "replay protection" would be the way to go, with perhaps > > a sentence saying that 431-4304 called this "anti-replay protection" ? > > That would be acceptable for me... OK, I used "replay protection" and "anti-replay service", and mentioned, that the latter is how the former is referred to in 4301-4303. I also leave "anti-replay service" in few places, so that we have some form of inheritance :-) I submitted a new version to not waste more time on bikeshedding. If we found better terms, we can always update the draft during IETF LC. Regards, Valery. > -- > kivi...@iki.fi _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list -- ipsec@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ipsec-le...@ietf.org
