Re: Editorial thoughts on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-02

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi Bjoern,

I liked the comments as they provide an insight from the reader's 
point of view.

At 18:45 06-12-2013, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>I speak English only as a third language, but my impression is "intended
>to enforce the opponent's will on the attacked party" is not in fact
>part of how the word is usually or even commonly understood.
>
>I think "In the Internet, the term is used" is not suitable prose for a
>general audience. This is more something like "when the Security Con-
>siderations sections of IETF specifications refer to an 'attack', then".
>
>I suspect the document probably should not give the impression to IETF
>outsiders that "we" speak in some sort of "code" where words do not mean
>what they ordinarily mean. It might be an option to simply say what the
>memo means by the word "attack" without reference to other definitions.

It is easy to forget that the English used on this mailing list is 
not as easy to understand for people who speak it as a second or 
third language.  There may be an assumption that the reader is 
well-versed in English literature and the way English is used in the 
IETF (see "words do not mean what they ordinarily mean"). The last 
part also occurs in other groups as it is a matter of what people 
have in common.

Regards,
-sm