Re: "Historic" is wrong

On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 01:02:22PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Theodore Ts'o <[email protected]> wrote:
>    > Similarly, for MITM, unless the goal is to avoid the gendered term
>    > "Man", I really don't think it's worth it to try to change MITM to
>    > "Active On-path Attacker".  For people who are security specialists,
>    > the details of whether the attacker is impersonating one side of the
>    > connection, or replaying a previously sent packet, or impersonating
>    > side of the attacker is probably not enough; they will need to look at
>    > the details of the attack.  For people who are not security
>    > specialists, they should either (a) upgrade to the latest version of
>    > the software, or (b) use canned security libraries which provide
>    > confidentiality and integrity protection.
>
> For those who wonder about this comment that seems to be a non-sequitor, please see:
>     https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/GSi83LeAbPSkcFcUsqJgmqECI8E/

Sorry, when I was going through my e-mail, I rolled my eyes and
deleted the thread from SAAG as being (IMHO) an amazingly pointless
waste of time, so I didn't bother replying.  When I saw another
proposal where people were spending a lot of time arguing about a
global search and replace of one set of terms for another on the IETF
list, I didn't realize that the two threads were on different threads,
and so I replied to the second thread mentioning the MITM debate on
the saag list.

As I concluded from the other thread:

> The bottom line is we need to ask the question of whether the benefits
> are larger than the costs of making terminology changes, and in my
> opinion for both of these cases, the answer is "no".

Cheers,

					- Ted