Subject: [DNSOP] Re: Retire "white lies"
From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
To: Steve Crocker <[email-masked]>
Cc: Deb Cooley <[email-masked]>, The IESG <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], dnsop-chairs <[email-masked]>, dnsop <[email-masked]>, Suzanne Woolf <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 17:39:37 -0500
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>

On Feb 13, 2025, at 12:00, Steve Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> If necessary, an Informational RFC explaining the history of the term could be written.  For those who are writing standards track RFCs in the future and feel it is necessary to acknowledge the term "white lie" they can then refer to the Informational RFC.  Readers focused on what they need to know in order to understand how negative spans work can ignore the distraction.

Preserving the history of the term is a good idea, or any term whose meaning comes with a story.  Instead of a standalone document, could it be a section in another, like compact-denial-of-existence?  If we had a separate document for every piece of jargon we’ve misused, we’d have, well, a lot more RFCs. ;)