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

Brian E Carpenter <> Tue, 13 April 2021 21:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D78953A1189; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 14:53:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZvUiXaIjVbei; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 14:53:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::430]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A5123A1187; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 14:53:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id y16so12340973pfc.5; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 14:53:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QoZHYGBosE/fqnJCzG437QhALV5oDzTgCAZZgdl4Nzw=; b=qkeA/wX7lmB+gOiqpEoMmOdXI+9IHJnrvm1EzmQA/n765DPhTqcvYh+jy3IO1uk5q9 RYfN3ax+XRvKk4UVQPNxAOuBIWSRTU5mxiEZ7DQs/pCfr/oCqX6zkg9cZ5QpsUAvdU23 f+B7PoJtqymwdg0HpM44l2P4R9/Kc5cLnFVXQTFCkK95MzrYUDxUSm3W6tnvvUxsihMM k8FVOUdQ7FNuLFG8e9ij1aoPONifS+X/EfDaEZfysJfGpz+DUcIA9NcyCms3Zmc8pUzF qlI2CDiVbjkfF5cMHMpMcaxBgiUKSHJS6/716hbwHMK08idws/LszqdbgmE5CAM55BwQ tJDg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=QoZHYGBosE/fqnJCzG437QhALV5oDzTgCAZZgdl4Nzw=; b=U4BcGeQN2Ma/Prw0WFVph4VW6CkljcWLXvtGc87waTDMlIQzmC+UHVGegIdArIUrGG wy1BFCbrFyWi1ulB8loZo/ABmKKx+xvwMPHLRXGiDRBYs/8j/XGnuunhB6enJdZJyLrz tHmFkjvmzxgYwIo/2eTweRY7U2/YRmKkdImrzewNgPkWOIOelmNN8ewrIP7sjlRI+eyx Nf5efr/gz3RJM9xU3puCUy4nBStR6d8GabAUlAEj8ikQGfs/BT6JOBeTcs964HpPS7dq N74MmHkz/nJWm8HUcr/rly/DXurDREqfp8/p/DSR5tT5sNtSpTDqziFkWiOwl7HlME2S w8VQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533B7NOfuGQlRbxK6TukQ7PTX5PDLL3M7aFv/C7QJlXu0I8mtX5V eLyVm2FeludCUFwfFqdf11g/EwIXie7YNA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxZXadjKUOQ/ncLNiS7W5NbcQMX6oEFbqGMWbHjByh6mOBKY/qP9q3dagEAwKRP7HFbXrLpoQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:74c:: with SMTP id 73mr34057805pgh.200.1618350791971; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 14:53:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id b21sm3170744pji.39.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 13 Apr 2021 14:53:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
References: <20210413200128.D5C3472D2739@ary.qy>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 09:53:07 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210413200128.D5C3472D2739@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 21:53:19 -0000

On 14-Apr-21 08:01, John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Salz, Rich <> said:
>> -=-=-=-=-=-
>> I believe it is important for the IETF to say something that has the force of IETF consensus behind it.  Instructions to the RFC Editor have not, and I would
>> be against doing so in this case because the lack of consensus makes the editorial changes less well-justified.
>> If the consensus is that we should not do this, I would be highly disappointed, but I would accept it as a consensus decision.
> Language policing is not part of the RFC Editor's job.

That may be true today, but when we have a new regime for the RFC Series model it might change, or at least, this whole issue might become part of the style guide.

> If the IETF wants to set language standards, that is fine,


> but it is up to the IETF itself to follow and if need be enforce those standards, not anyone else.

I hope you would apply that statement to all RFC streams, not just the IETF stream.