HI Michael, > Reading this thread, I'm slightly confused as to which part we are now bike > shedding. I think it's the use of the term 'anti-replay protection' which > occurs like > 16 times in the -00 I-D.
Exactly. > I haven't seen the newly posted draft yet. > > 1. I don't have a problem with "Sequence Number Properties" for the title of > the > registry. > > 2. It's weird that we call it *anti* replay protection, yet QUIC/TLS call it > replay protection. Like both senses of the term mean the same thing? :-) That's the root of the problem :-) RFCs 4301-4303 use "anti-replay protection", "anti-replay mechanism" etc., that's why I picked up this term (after all, we all deal with IPsec, right?). But it occurs that the rest of the world use "replay protection". We try to eliminate this discrepancy. "That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" (Shakespeare). Regards, Valery. > 3. "OK, I used "replay protection" and "anti-replay service", and mentioned," > I'm good with this. > > > > -- > Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > > _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list -- ipsec@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ipsec-le...@ietf.org
