Subject: [tcpinc] What to use instead of "spec"

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 17:52:59 +0000

Like Kyle, I'm also uncomfortable with the use of the word "spec."

How about "mechanism" instead?   That enables separation between
	- Encryption mechanism (what is done to produce the bits "on the wire")
	- Specification of an encryption mechanism  or encryption mechanism
		spec[ification] (what's in the doc)

The latter specifications are actually protocol specifications (e.g., they include
key exchange in addition to encryption).

Thanks, --David

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 11:21:18 -0700

> key exchange in addition to encryption).

FWIW,:

1) protocols are more than just what's "on the wire"
    They are the sum of the state machine on each end, the interfaces to
layers above and below, and the messages (on the wire).

2) a specification is a *description* of a protocol, algorithm, or mechanism
    It is distinct from the concept thereof and the implementations thereof.
    We tend to refer directly to the protocol/algorithm/mechanism
(unless we're updating a spec thereof).

3) I agree the doc uses "spec" to mean too many things:
    - TCP option variant
    - security transform (from IPsec, i.e., algorithm)
    - security association (from IPsec, i.e., transform and its
configuration parameters for a given TCP connection)

I would suggest using different terms as needed in different places, and
copying the terms from IPsec where relevant here.

Joe

---

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 19:18:23 +0000

We're in semi-violent agreement on protocol vs. protocol specification.

> copying the terms from IPsec where relevant here.

The analogous IPsec term would be "protocol" for things like tcpcrypt and
the TLS profile, with "protocol specification" as a natural term for a document.
As the draft currently stands, the result would be "encryption protocol" and
"encryption protocol specification" both of which could be prefixed by TCP
for precision.

If needed, the IKEv2 term "transform" could be used to refer to elements
of a TCP encryption protocol.

Thanks, --David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 2:21 PM
> To: Black, David; tcpinc
> Subject: Re: [tcpinc] What to use instead of "spec"
> 
> 
>

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 13:01:19 -0700

I also got the impression that "spec" was also being used in the same
sense as SA, i.e., protocol/algorithm + configuration parameters.

Regardless, though, the point seems clear - reuse the style of terms
from other security docs ...

Joe