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

[Ken Ballou <ballou@crab.mv.com>]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 04:34:56PM -0500, Stephen Kent wrote:
> At 13:15 -0600 11/10/03, Radia Perlman wrote:
> >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
> >
> 
> 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

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