On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 11:22:00AM +0300, Valery Smyslov wrote: > Hi Steffen, > > > Hi, > > > > I've read the document and I support it. > > > > One nit: > > > > The document talkes about 'anti-replay protection' which sounds a bit odd. > > We > > protect against replay, not anti-replay. > > > > ESP RFC 4303 talkes about 'anti-replay service' or just 'anti-replay'. > > Maybe the document can be aligned with terms used in ESP. > > I'm all for aligning this document with RFC 4303 (especially if currently > used terms may confuse readers). But I checked RFC 4303 - it uses: > > - anti-replay service (8 times) > - anti-replay mechanism (2 times) > - anti-replay feature (2 times) > - anti-replay protection (2 times) --- sic! > - anti-replay (as a noun, 10 times)
Looks like I did not scan the whole document :) > > The question is - what term is best to use. Perhaps > we should use different terms in different contexts > (e.g., anti-replay service as a 'thing', that the receiver turns on/off > and anti-replay feature as an ability to enable that service)? > > Amy suggestions? My favorite would be 'replay protection' because that's what it does. Unforunately that is not used at all in RFC 4303. Given that we want to use terms used in RFC 4303, I'm fine with your proposal above. But please don't use 'anti-replay protection'. Steffen _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
