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

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Fri, 09 April 2021 16:05 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 9E5F23A25DE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 09:05:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.119
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.119 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_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 4D7Lc2WqZUv1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 09:05:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bird.elm.relay.mailchannels.net (bird.elm.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.212.17]) (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 C88993A25DC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 09:05:51 -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 91EC52225F; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 16:05:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a75.g.dreamhost.com (100-98-55-5.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.98.55.5]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4492F222E8; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 16:05:48 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a75.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 100.98.55.5 (trex/6.1.1); Fri, 09 Apr 2021 16:05:50 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Illustrious-Wide-Eyed: 691fc8d376bd1629_1617984350360_4164114867
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1617984350360:918567712
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1617984350359
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a75.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a75.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9C898D247; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 16:05:47 +0000 (UTC)
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:content-transfer-encoding; s= cryptonector.com; bh=3TnTmWd5YhrtBTkwYqZ65pPlgqo=; b=Plp0LSqLSZS DWdo9OEs+VvGbLCcUYlQ2DecjEligH+ikd2lHB8eEtng3/MCZ3fh3uHXF7zUG+PP Z79K0hWlD7Rf8ZcM9ubwbZ4gUOptrdf/R7XB4wq8ZYa/Hr1mNa/mQsvwkdZkcrr6 Bz+aDAlxmH+VrpY1CrldlXT/o/ca+Uro=
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-a75.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 537BF8D244; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 16:05:43 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 11:05:40 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a75
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
Message-ID: <20210409160539.GA9612@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> <130eadf6-70c2-9035-6ac2-b20dea7e9dba@joelhalpern.com> <20210406212509.GS3828@localhost> <046922BE-F850-4B09-8527-D2B014505C44@juniper.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <046922BE-F850-4B09-8527-D2B014505C44@juniper.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/B_vGwUXNlGYsXasH6_U4SXfYsP8>
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: Fri, 09 Apr 2021 16:05:57 -0000

On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 12:57:40AM +0000, John Scudder wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2021, at 5:26 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:
> > 
> > At this point I think the best compromise is for the IESG to indicate
> > its terminology preferences to the RSE and hope the RSE enforces them
> > (which, they almost certainly would).
> 
> “Hope the RSE enforces them”. Enforcement would be a significant step
> beyond the mere “recommendation” that was in the proposed charter. I’m
> surprised you’re advocating for this more prescriptive approach. 

I wasn't expressing _my_ hope.  I should have been clearer.

My proposal, fleshed out:

 - direct the RSE to develop terminology standards;

 - direct the RPC to enforce the RSE's terminology standards;

 - whenever an author or authors, as well as the responsible AD,
   disagree with editorial changes made or proposed by the RPC, they may
   override the RPC's change,

 - but if the RPC feels strongly about it, they may request a WG LC on
   this issue.

 - There would be no IESG or IETF involvement in resolving any such
   disputes.

Nico
--