Re: Terminology discussion threads

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Fri, 14 August 2020 15:24 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 09F823A0EBA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 08:24:37 -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_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 rSGWxzJGD76G for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 08:24:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bonobo.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (bonobo.birch.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.209.22]) (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 57FA33A0D4E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 08:24:35 -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 3B00D3414C4; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 15:24:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a46.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-7-27.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.7.27]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B0B5D340873; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 15:24:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a46.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.18.8); Fri, 14 Aug 2020 15:24:34 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Cooperative-Supply: 498689810394a196_1597418673971_2446396551
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1597418673970:1969515416
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1597418673970
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a46.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a46.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D40F7DFEE; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 08:24:33 -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=DjLa4o6B1AO499 E5pSl7e/2S1kQ=; b=lVfQZisYHTysS6gkmIaC5YrhYJYXNbgdYEEfLvgEGPkZiu EsQbJO6nduuOL16HQeQIK/jzfAOXuckoYXa+jQ9htP6a3/py+K+wxnPrnq5cR+tq gu5JEzF0VQ1U0Xk6GdPDAuAeVQYD+nwgXoyHttmEutaJjLK1jumxH/qy+Y5pU=
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-a46.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6595B7EFAB; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 08:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 10:24:30 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a46
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Terminology discussion threads
Message-ID: <20200814152428.GI3100@localhost>
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> <E903D378-9FA6-44B7-BDDA-3D283F73039D@sobco.com> <CAL02cgQJfe3bTs2-vgAbCxhbrYLcOvUeucL=Yaw-BPnbx5Keqw@mail.gmail.com> <d42fea69-93fc-2623-c8a7-91c9de9f4bfe@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d42fea69-93fc-2623-c8a7-91c9de9f4bfe@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK
X-VR-OUT-SCORE: -100
X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedrleejgdekvdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfftffgtefojffquffvnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpeffhffvuffkfhggtggujggfsehttdertddtredvnecuhfhrohhmpefpihgtohcuhghilhhlihgrmhhsuceonhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepffdtkeethfeuteeviefgfeegjeetjedvhfehgfdvtdefueejheelgeeuhffghffgnecukfhppedvgedrvdekrddutdekrddukeefnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmohguvgepshhmthhppdhhvghloheplhhotggrlhhhohhsthdpihhnvghtpedvgedrvdekrddutdekrddukeefpdhrvghtuhhrnhdqphgrthhhpefpihgtohcuhghilhhlihgrmhhsuceonhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomheqpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepnhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomhdpnhhrtghpthhtohepnhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomh
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/FuLhHmJHAdyE3fzFtDUaXfF8NG8>
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, 14 Aug 2020 15:24:37 -0000

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 09:48:27AM -0800, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 8/13/20 9:32 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> > As Cos and Barbara pointed out, it is not criticism of the IESG that is
> > being moderated.
> 
> To the extent that a few people have included both a discussion of
> the decision and criticism of the proposal in a single piece of
> email, it effectively is.
> 
> I think more clarity around this would be helpful.  It should be
> clearer, in particular, that discussion of the process is not out-
> of-bounds.  If that discussion turns toxic, as well, it can be
> dealt with at that time.  But I think limiting it now is a mistake.

Thank you so much for the above post.  I mean that sincerely.  We can be
on different sides of an issue like this one and still be kind to each
other and see how the other sides' positions can be legitimate, or
legitimate enough to be deserving of space to debate.

Nico
--