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

Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> Mon, 05 April 2021 23:31 UTC

Return-Path: <mstjohns@comcast.net>
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 9430D3A2C7F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 16:31:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcast.net
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 F8wNqBsWgDar for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 16:31:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-02v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-02v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:34]) (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 19C363A2C7C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 16:31:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-ch2-18v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.114]) by resqmta-ch2-02v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id TY8zlNETPGhhbTYgklHn9T; Mon, 05 Apr 2021 23:31:22 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=20190202a; t=1617665482; bh=/1J1uwOz05D3Bu6GDl17NhX2OEP5JvVp80HUZ1A76x0=; h=Received:Received:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=hLiw1XxS2p4ITOYtN8UdE/nbRO9cPbOspPi4+fJ6zXQr+/V4FQ/m0CByCO47vvThI CpBNOMOjrNcLWj2hMLb9C3C1xlDuVZrthsaZ7h4gVfS1Pl2mD+sqW07GwpqIpP570Z pDwZflpy4qoBcretSLqq45QZxqn4FKqCSFi9dZZs5cElUaqcmQuHOYqmD8DKEKTlpe 4sM4Xt71OekkjTxVQCwoQ3saOY/sls8ZPGmfdi4KIuRoKuk9fJGReJHNbypC/YgNUH JpWfZfED6TIpoRWMm4uUijZ6DfI919QpKasobrM9XEOqYPhw6BMwJNTMSr7WUVPGUx DIIyVRsVNiJhQ==
Received: from [192.168.1.23] ([138.88.204.18]) by resomta-ch2-18v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTPSA id TYgZldto569JnTYgdljjt0; Mon, 05 Apr 2021 23:31:20 +0000
X-Xfinity-VAAS: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrudejfedgvddvucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuvehomhgtrghsthdqtfgvshhipdfqfgfvpdfpqffurfetoffkrfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedtudenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgesrgdtreertdefjeenucfhrhhomhepofhitghhrggvlhcuufhtlfhohhhnshcuoehmshhtjhhohhhnshestghomhgtrghsthdrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepuedvfefgheeghfffgfelgeeukeelhefhjeekgeegvdevtefftdekudekfeeuudehnecukfhppedufeekrdekkedrvddtgedrudeknecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehhvghloheplgduledvrdduieekrddurddvfegnpdhinhgvthepudefkedrkeekrddvtdegrddukedpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmshhtjhhohhhnshestghomhgtrghsthdrnhgvthdprhgtphhtthhopehivghtfhesihgvthhfrdhorhhg
X-Xfinity-VMeta: sc=0.00;st=legit
Subject: Re: WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20210401013907.0b3b7fe8@elandnews.com> <89383942-204e-a94e-3350-42bfb4165ba0@comcast.net>
From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <792c4815-8c36-e5fa-9fbe-2e1cfa97239f@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 19:31:11 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <89383942-204e-a94e-3350-42bfb4165ba0@comcast.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------7F34F48BB0C7989687D9C52A"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/F8nl1-psx67nRyzzevc3jrHNgJI>
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: Mon, 05 Apr 2021 23:31:26 -0000

On 4/5/2021 7:11 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
>
> For some reason I can't find the original announcement, so I'll just 
> do this bare.
>
>
> Given the general language of RFC 2418, my best take is that _*it's 
> inappropriate for the IETF to charter a working group on this 
> topic*_.   It's not a technical topic, and it does not fit the general 
> WG model.
>
> To my best recollection (which means I may have missed one), we've 
> never chartered a WG solely for the purpose of writing documents that 
> purport to modify the way the IETF does business.
>
*sigh* Ignore the above. Joel H reminded me of Poised, Poisson of the 
previous century and Newtrk of the previous decade.   I'm sure there are 
others.


> Such documents have usually come either as IESG / IAB 
> authored/sponsored BCPs.  Indeed, BCP 95 was just such a document.   
> WGs have been (should be?) for technical activities related to 
> specifying how the Internet works.
>
> <minirant>Technical WGs at least have the possibility of achieving 
> consensus based on the analysis of tradeoffs of hard facts and good 
> analysis.  A "WG" such as TERM may fail of achieving even WG 
> consensus, let alone community consensus (especially given the current 
> ongoing discussions) and there will be no fall back to fact analysis 
> possible.   I can't see any way an appeal could be managed in those 
> circumstances and I strongly suggest we do not try to place this in 
> the WG model.</minirant>
>
> Since the proposed charter for Term will effect more than just the 
> standards process (e.g. it potentially effects all of the current and 
> future RFC streams), it would appear this should be handled either as 
> an IAB activity (either authored, or referred to a workshop), or 
> deferred until the RFCED group completes its work and can have this 
> assigned as a work item.
>
> My first preference is to do this as an IAB Workshop report with no 
> BCP tag and with as dispassionate an analysis and output language as 
> possible.  E.g. explanatory language vs directive.
>
> Mike
>
>