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

[Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at sun.com>]

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.