IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Fri, 23 April 2021 20:53 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.com>
X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6397B3A0B69 for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:53:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.92
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com
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 XNwJfIW5XgRK for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:53:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6D703A0B63 for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:52:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBC5B5C0066 for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 16:52:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 23 Apr 2021 16:52:58 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=sW0CuSgV2yRQ3XHHQpllDBdJAXH6ypQkkBsqsHv7r Vo=; b=qcxsLAQMS8KgoFbyUyWwKP81NLcQjwqJUyDE0QQ/woySWDSntSEIku9g1 YfbJiJknrv3Hf/gNABhrYcuSij9eZ2MI3XQHNKieEqp3SMe2n3yPP9JySXa/goh0 MgV/6XGdWjGdahXTsa9fxjcoEd6pJgxqhTa9FYU1dnzcZR48aE5fHGiajviLwb0/ UeVoV+PuKgg9GmxpCp+WuFUzJy3v8ZZQViQ+UeWF5gL44yaUb2y8NIQYvtS9xHtS TW5cGEEyCTN/oqb6YfQGDxAhE1aU1JRy5v+gnefynUALJPjIjbMMlvENih5jMu+E zmC9jF6DpRqRitB/4oHZociNJEVHA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:qjODYDCNsju_71VLgt3p7t5lc9HNfL0JmyWwad0r05f8HiT1qJyF9g> <xme:qjODYJhZFeaKfLgXvmYih7uMnf_70k4dliGT-X_Ui-Iti_moEMqpobPvZlxJo-fY8 DkIqRjpfniMzA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvdduvddgudehfecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtgfesth ekredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihhthhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvght fihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhephefhuedthe efgfefgffhkeehgfeugfeiudeugeejkeefleelueeiffetfeeuudeunecukfhppedvfedr uddvgedruddtrddujedtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrg hilhhfrhhomhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:qjODYOkNFoWLG6_qXEkBeQiY8nqpOm-jAi1uAf60fpeVBycsh_aygA> <xmx:qjODYFyukqAWT6cVzyznxw1UKA7BpSbMkEiEqAkCN90l21wPKBpMmw> <xmx:qjODYISpLug9PAVkT51bo4tFbt2o6YiJJTAKHsvj9P2q3bl3TaehJA> <xmx:qjODYOBibt9ZkcLHjIhbhsFZjZe_FHRnO8vq8j83sb24QaR6wrECNg>
Received: from [192.168.1.69] (23-124-10-170.lightspeed.knvltn.sbcglobal.net [23.124.10.170]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 15BA5108005C for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 16:52:58 -0400 (EDT)
To: gendispatch@ietf.org
References: <161918836800.7390.6996403788262551415@ietfa.amsl.com> <2563B42A-20A4-4A9F-B9CA-518A72A0A095@eggert.org> <219fd089-1d7c-88f9-c3c6-80872fd86319@cs.tcd.ie>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <e626ec17-8741-d90c-de53-2dffe001e08f@network-heretics.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 16:52:57 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <219fd089-1d7c-88f9-c3c6-80872fd86319@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/JuDIGGNMzeKzZ3CiJkgpCLpoSgM>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <gendispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 20:53:04 -0000

On 4/23/21 11:03 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:

> I think it's a mistake to craft or point at a curated
> list of bad terms as I've said before

FWIW, I agree.   Or at least, if this turns into an effort to find as 
many "bad" terms as possible, or an effort to signal more and more 
"virtue" by excising more and more terms from IETF's vocabulary, IMO 
that would be a Bad Thing.

Keith

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email