Align terminology with RFC 9260 about draft-westerlund-tsvwg-dtls-over-sctp-bis

[emanjon]

We should check terminology alignment with RFC 8446 and RFC 4895 as well

• I removed some "-" to align with RFC 4895 but there might be more
• RFC 8446 use ClientHello and KeyUpdate when it talks about the exact name of the message but use Client Hello and key update in other parts.

[teiclap]

ClientHello is a name and Client Hello is a noun. I will check for such cases

[teiclap]

Also I noted that rfc4895 is not aligned with rfc9260 when using INIT-ACK, COOKIE-ECHO etc.

[gloinul]

Lets follow RFC 9260 usage as that is the latest spec and current main spec.

[emanjon]

Let's check for alignment with RFC 4895 as well. The term "key-id" is used in one place.

[teiclap]

key-id --> Key Identifier
done

[teiclap]

There's no SCTP-AUTH in 4895, I replace with SCTP AUTH instead that is locally defined.

[emanjon]

RFC 9260 talks about SCTP-AUTH .....

The SCTP Authentication extension SCTP-AUTH [RFC4895]

[gloinul]

RFC 9260 talks about SCTP-AUTH .....

The SCTP Authentication extension SCTP-AUTH [RFC4895]

I think actually using SCTP-AUTH would be clearer and I think that is fine if RFC 9260 is using it. Should we revert this change?

[teiclap]

OK, even though rfc4895 uses SCTP AUTH.
RFC9260 has higher prio