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

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

[Removing [e-mail]]

Was there a particular reason you copied GENDISPATCH on your message? 
Did you perhaps intend the terminology list?

pr

On 13 Apr 2021, at 16:53, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> On 14-Apr-21 08:01, John Levine wrote:
>> It appears that Salz, Rich <[e-mail]> said:
>>> -=-=-=-=-=-
>>> I believe it is important for the IETF to say something that has the 
>>> force of IETF consensus behind it.  Instructions to the RFC Editor 
>>> have not, and I would
>>> be against doing so in this case because the lack of consensus makes 
>>> the editorial changes less well-justified.
>>>
>>> If the consensus is that we should not do this, I would be highly 
>>> disappointed, but I would accept it as a consensus decision.
>>
>> Language policing is not part of the RFC Editor's job.
>
> That may be true today, but when we have a new regime for the RFC 
> Series model it might change, or at least, this whole issue might 
> become part of the style guide.
>
>> If the IETF wants to set language standards, that is fine,
>
> s/standards/guidelines/
>
>> but it is up to the IETF itself to follow and if need be enforce 
>> those standards, not anyone else.
>
> I hope you would apply that statement to all RFC streams, not just the 
> IETF stream.
>
> Regards
>     Brian


-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best