IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Terminology discussion threads

Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> Tue, 18 August 2020 05:38 UTC

Return-Path: <paf@frobbit.se>
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 1818C3A1757 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 22:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, 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=frobbit.se
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 7EO-jY9oWjux for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 22:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffe::176]) (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 2A2623A12E7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 22:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [169.254.195.79] (unknown [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:0:fde0:1e51:49a5:4278]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 997A723073; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 07:38:33 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=frobbit.se; s=mail; t=1597729113; bh=dR2PRijmCYIX+DimVyV0I6C0klAEPg9wkM7MCwGvxYU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ZbpIGr4VUKQqpPOHc9FubqRuRlnLnFcBnqsegP1Sn+bhzwkoMuQRelBZbvw3iysGB 62r87PcdTr1mEZPbC3K3SCHTtF2m/rG7YFC1QTXJfgamQrrG9WJz+R1MO5PlROwxuS COfP5OOUhd+Y8bVKVzZ0LpfZMMbWsnIZFR9iPwTE=
From: Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Terminology discussion threads
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 07:38:32 +0200
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5671)
Message-ID: <0019B701-9A1D-41AF-9A11-028274156C8D@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <259dbfa2-7e24-f41c-ce48-14e40bed99fb@network-heretics.com>
References: <9ABDC2BC-E6A3-4249-99C5-F0BB3683A03D@ietf.org> <223A1539-30B0-424A-89D1-A968FFD4C140@symbolic.software> <aceec35c-ccc8-ccca-7a5b-7d23746f67e2@ietf.org> <A9BB633C-3278-406C-BD38-748646D7E454@symbolic.software> <C4BC10B5-6F65-451F-8B15-98AA8D54966A@ietf.org> <m2sgcq4fq1.wl-randy@psg.com> <20200813181549.GA27732@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <6EDEF995-7D31-42D4-83C7-B9C406962516@gmail.com> <20200813194819.GB14418@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <3af06ea0-5702-e357-2177-ea7de38f09c3@comcast.net> <CAL02cgQzhuO1QeLh5Bbu8k4fPyVeLy-XwRHZLL7575dEgGRc6w@mail.gmail.com> <fe4b3ec5-21e6-fa90-e56a-f3b6231ed3b9@gmail.com> <CB38947B-46A1-42E4-B252-7DE56C4C1DF3@symbolic.software> <CAHw9_iKj3dV6AUGMZoqM1uNUauOwRdTaWxumVyJZo2pF=Xq9ew@mail.gmail.com> <2c355400-6098-46c2-5749-335ef7441767@meetinghouse.net> <259dbfa2-7e24-f41c-ce48-14e40bed99fb@network-heretics.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=_MailMate_775914F1-1D71-40BE-863B-BC83D53E2405_="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/4inLzASssLUpzSWUuOEAZmryGQE>
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: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 05:38:38 -0000

On 17 Aug 2020, at 21:24, Keith Moore wrote:

> I do think that when someone has said basically the same thing 2x or 3x, it might then be appropriate for the SAA to privately say to that individual "it looks like you're looping; maybe back off for awhile and see if someone else finds a way to break the logjam?"

Unfortunately this also requires whoever is supposed to read and listen have done so. I see in too many *technical* discussions last few years that requirements and interests from some people have completely been run over. That also creates higher interest of repeated statements. Being on the rough side does not imply one should be ignored.

   Patrik

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email