Subject: Re: Meta-comment: use of "red" / "black" terminology...

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:15:23 -0600

I agree with Ted. Even though I know what the terms mean, I never could
remember which was red and which was black. It's unnecessary to introduce
new terms at this stage.

Radia

----- Original Message -----
From: Theodore Ts'o <[email-masked]>
Date: Monday, November 10, 2003 10:27 am
Subject: Meta-comment: use of "red" / "black" terminology...

> 
> One comment which Barbara and I noticed in many of the 2401 issues is
> the use of the terms "red-side", "black-side", "red-to-black", etc.
> 
> To date these terms have not been used in the IPsec RFC's and I-
> D's, and
> I'd like to suggest that perhaps we should be careful not to introduce
> them.  The reasons for this is two-fold.  First of all, it introduces
> additional specialized lingo which may make the documents more 
> difficultto read.  Secondly, "red" and "black" primarily only makes 
> sense in the
> case of a security gateway, and do not necessarily make much sense 
> in an
> peer-to-peer configuration.  There is at
 least one example where 
> the use
> of "red" and "black" lingo has also been accompanied by diagrams that
> only address the use of IPsec in tunnel mode and assume the 
> VPN/Securitygateway model.
> 
> Comments?
> 
>                                        	- Ted
> 
> 
>

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 16:34:56 -0500

>remember which was red and which was black. It's unnecessary to introduce

I'm open to suggestions for alternative terms.  We have used 
"plaintext" and ciphertext" in some cases, but these are not great 
terms in the IPsec context, since bypassed traffic is emitted on the 
"ciphertext" side.  The terms "trusted" and "untrusted" is also 
problematic.

Steve

---

From: Ken Ballou <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 19:20:19 -0500

> "ciphertext" side.  The terms "trusted" and "untrusted" is also 

If the use of the terms "red" and "black" can improve the clarity of the
explanation, then I would have no problem with their use.  But *please*
take pity on poor saps like me and define the terms in *each* document in
which they are used at or before the point of first use.  (I had not
heard these terms before I started working on IPsec and heard Steve use
them.  I needed to ask for an explanation, which he kindly provided.  I
don't think these terms would necessarily be common knowledge to everyone
who needs to read the RFCs.)

                    - Ken