do we need to rename?

[Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld%east.sun.com@localhost>]

I'd like to open discussion on the following question:

 - Is it necessary to rename the SSH protocol?

As I stated before:

   It's fair to say that there are no shortage of possible alternate
   names.  Let's not waste time enumerating them until we agree that
   renaming is inevitable.  Until we have consensus on the question of
   renaming, discussion of possible alternate names for the WG and its
   protocols are OUT OF SCOPE.

Here's a quick, and necessarily incomplete, list of pros/cons of
renaming, in no particular order:

 - extracts the IETF from the trademark dispute, letting us get
underway with standardization again.

 - we may be able to proceed more quickly once we have picked a new
name.

 - there are a fair number of folks who are unhappy with the apparent
unix-centric nature of the "Secure Shell" name.

 - renaming may be interpreted (incorrectly) as a statement by the
IETF that the trademark is valid, which may have bearing on the
trademark dispute itself.

 - renaming will introduce confusion in the marketplace and for end
users.  

 - renaming will not eliminate the need to use the "SSH" word in
documentation -- implementors will still have a need to cite that they
implement the protocol-formerly-known-as-SSH for the forseeable
future.

 - historic evidence indicates that the IETF is not particulary
successful at renaming deployed protocols; for instance, see S/Key ->
OTP and SSL -> TLS, neither of which really seems to have "stuck".

 - renaming may not actually prevent dilution of the trademark, since
folks will still know the protocol as SSH and will likely still use
the old name generically out of habit even if we rename the protocol.

Send comments to the list or to me directly.

					- Bill