IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ecrit] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-18: (with COMMENT)

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Thu, 03 March 2022 07:29 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
X-Original-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD1753A129D; Wed, 2 Mar 2022 23:29:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mp1HHqy4hMo8; Wed, 2 Mar 2022 23:29:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [91.190.195.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8F623A13EF; Wed, 2 Mar 2022 23:29:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:304f:94cd:662e:b0a5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 53ED11D501A; Thu, 3 Mar 2022 09:29:45 +0200 (EET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1646292585; bh=KfkW6Azm2CMlXyxTWIMtriL/6yY1JSYswsab1ntakQc=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=chblKrGvVUKjybTotvklvUsCJ+T2ZJqW2MrpqshYA5zzcNDD5WFuR6HokD5ZL/eE/ 6DjopxlQpsAFUmoYNf/J1iy4UNV8UVxc9n9uoiZA2/clcVV2+iGMG8Y3McQrB4bVgA 1K/zWnJdqchNp/uHeoNxH8rkpADoKXJUQmaCLDq4=
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_87323C8F-B799-457A-9206-159B4A2732FD"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 15.0 \(3693.60.0.1.1\))
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
In-Reply-To: <47EBF2A1-548A-4B66-B4EA-8C75A54F2A6B@coretechnologyconsulting.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2022 09:29:44 +0200
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location@ietf.org, ecrit-chairs@ietf.org, ecrit@ietf.org, dwightpurtle@gmail.com
Message-Id: <2C1CB5C7-A023-4D6A-AACD-15BF75C15676@eggert.org>
References: <164614183477.20417.3095859513593256202@ietfa.amsl.com> <47EBF2A1-548A-4B66-B4EA-8C75A54F2A6B@coretechnologyconsulting.com>
To: Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@coretechnologyconsulting.com>
X-MailScanner-ID: 53ED11D501A.A3820
X-MailScanner: Not scanned: please contact your Internet E-Mail Service Provider for details
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ecrit/9BK-XvZmb98ddX8mQ7Xls6Y-haU>
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-18: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ecrit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies <ecrit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ecrit/>
List-Post: <mailto:ecrit@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2022 07:29:58 -0000

Hi,

On 2022-3-2, at 20:50, Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@coretechnologyconsulting.com> wrote:
> Is the concern specifically with the term "invalid," presumably because it's a homograph for the word "invalid" referencing someone with a chronic debilitating condition? That is, the term "valid" is fine?

I believe so.

> If so, "not valid" might be OK, but we use the LoST protocol element <invalid>.

And that is probably a good reason to keep the term.

I was raising these as an opportunity for the authors to consider if terminology improvements could be made - that's all I was asking for.

Thanks,
Lars

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email