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

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Wed, 14 April 2021 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 343293A14BD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 08:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.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 Per9UTpncnuX for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 08:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from butterfly.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (butterfly.birch.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.209.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F15763A14B6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 08:57:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19811702C4B; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 15:57:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a6.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-27-180.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.27.180]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A176570259E; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 15:57:49 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a6.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 100.96.27.180 (trex/6.1.1); Wed, 14 Apr 2021 15:57:50 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Troubled-Attack: 106f213e25589220_1618415869920_3584669440
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1618415869920:644379730
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1618415869920
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a6.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a6.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64F23870C6; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 08:57:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=byKVLkM2+kWfmt b0ofBoKoIsdZI=; b=BdprbXTi8fdcJ7LBvMDJnAuXWMEpAHdxbkuQUy8BxiATkO IUTP24FNM+T+gz3GOj8IOw6h04kfq3t+6p760CGXqT0pymJzPw55Nl1i8CWNUbUf OULEHZtWzfQtzzFs7hsbtDD2Hcy3N1afnn9jxR7Fq/faXzICUP3i1/sVBqYbA=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a6.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D62CA870D1; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 08:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:57:44 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a6
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
Message-ID: <20210414155741.GN9612@localhost>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20210401013907.0b3b7fe8@elandnews.com> <89383942-204e-a94e-3350-42bfb4165ba0@comcast.net> <792c4815-8c36-e5fa-9fbe-2e1cfa97239f@comcast.net> <D18D87D95723A68D8E75B6BC@PSB> <20210406152930.GR3828@localhost> <f52c46cf-03fb-6692-3a87-9b7db639f2e9@gmail.com> <DF5DCE5F-C1AA-4131-AC3F-56429ADC97CF@piuha.net> <1199e51c-f275-149b-0a9f-a67cb71ee44f@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1199e51c-f275-149b-0a9f-a67cb71ee44f@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/2x7cIpinao9wiLucZ3WI4rBd350>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 15:57:59 -0000

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 09:19:58AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Completely agreed. But my concern is that the RFC Series as a whole
> would look pretty stupid if (to take a strawman example) the IETF
                                         ^^^^^^^^

My daughter's future mother-in-law told me that some other lady she was
talking to recently objected to the word 'strawman', much like some here
object to MITM.  Off with your head, Brian!