Subject: do we need to rename?

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 18:07:35 -0500

I'd like to open discussion on the following question:

 - Is it necessary to rename the SSH protocol?

As I stated before:

   It's fair to say that there are no shortage of possible alternate
   names.  Let's not waste time enumerating them until we agree that
   renaming is inevitable.  Until we have consensus on the question of
   renaming, discussion of possible alternate names for the WG and its
   protocols are OUT OF SCOPE.

Here's a quick, and necessarily incomplete, list of pros/cons of
renaming, in no particular order:

 - extracts the IETF from the trademark dispute, letting us get
underway with standardization again.

 - we may be able to proceed more quickly once we have picked a new
name.

 - there are a fair number of folks who are unhappy with the apparent
unix-centric nature of the "Secure Shell" name.

 - renaming may be interpreted (incorrectly) as a statement by the
IETF that the trademark is valid, which may have bearing on the
trademark dispute itself.

 - renaming will introduce confusion in the marketplace and for end
users.  

 - renaming will not eliminate the need to use the "SSH" word in
documentation -- implementors will still have a need to cite that they
implement the protocol-formerly-known-as-SSH for the forseeable
future.

 - historic evidence indicates that the IETF is not particulary
successful at renaming deployed protocols; for instance, see S/Key ->
OTP and SSL -> TLS, neither of which really seems to have "stuck".

 - renaming may not actually prevent dilution of the trademark, since
folks will still know the protocol as SSH and will likely still use
the old name generically out of habit even if we rename the protocol.

Send comments to the list or to me directly.

					- Bill

---

From: Jason R Thorpe <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 23:22:52 -0800

> trademark dispute itself.

It seems to me that this reason, just on its own, is enough justification
for NOT renaming.

-- 
        -- Jason R. Thorpe <[email-masked]>

---

From: "denis bider" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 16:53:59 +0100

Bill Sommerfeld writes:

>  - IETF is not particulary successful at renaming deployed protocols;

(my personal opinion)

Although Reason#1 as currently phrased sounds like a matter of pride, which
would put it in a bit of a shady light, the other 4 reasons are very sound.
All of them together, they support Reason#1 very well. My personal opinion
would be that the causes AGAINST renaming definitely outweigh the causes FOR
renaming.

I wouldn't rename; not because of pride, but because, given the background,
I don't see it as a positive thing to do. I see it as a retreat without any
valid justification. Retreats must have valid justifications.

Regards,

denis

---

From: "Charles M. Hannum" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 09:56:34 -0800

> valid justification. Retreats must have valid justifications.

Speaking of `retreats' suggests pretty strongly that it *is* a matter of
pride.

---

From: "denis bider" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 19:48:16 +0100

> > I wouldn't rename; not because of pride, but because, given
> > the background, I don't see it as a positive thing to do.
> > I see it as a retreat without any valid justification.
> > Retreats must have valid justifications.
>
> Speaking of `retreats' suggests pretty strongly that it *is*
> a matter of pride.

I would guess that you posted this comment inadvertently before you could
hit the Cancel button, because this is simply not so.

If one has a strong case, then choosing to retreat because one fears the
bully is unethical, because it unnecessarily advances the bully's unfair
cause. If one has a weak case, then choosing to retreat is wise, and
deciding not to retreat regardless is a symptom of not being able to control
one's pride.

I believe we have a strong case, therefore pride is not an issue. Rather, I
believe it would be unethical for us to retreat in fear of SSH
Communications Security; because by doing so, we would be passively
promoting an unsound business practice, thereby increasing the possibility
of this behavior occuring again in the future.

I think it is in our interest (i.e., the interest of the ssh-working-group
minus participants employed by ssh-the-company) to prevent or, failing that,
at least discourage this behavior in the future.

Regards,

denis

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 19:21:19 -0500

I've reviewed both the messages to this list and the messages sent to
me privately.

I received 11 private messages on the topic.  Three were variants of
"wait and see"; of them, one suggested punting the problem up to the
IESG/IAB, while two merely wanted to wait for the external trademark
dispute to be resolved; these two also hoped that renaming would not
be necessary.  The remaining 8 were all strongly against renaming, and
came from folks involved with at least three or four different
implementations.

Based on a combination of this input and the messages to the working
group list over the past several days, I have to conclude that there
is no possibility that we can achieve consensus in favor of renaming
the protocol at this time.

					- Bill