IETF Logo Mail Archive

WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Thu, 01 April 2021 09:52 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 D89A13A12EF; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 02:52:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.123
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.123 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DEAR_SOMETHING=1.973, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=elandsys.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 PqpxdeGJvQqb; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 02:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25ED53A12ED; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 02:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.150.50]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 1319pq7N001081 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 1 Apr 2021 02:52:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1617270723; x=1617357123; i=@elandsys.com; bh=zSSuuOMA92dVj3mRw/tvElFvVBMT70PHJW3+9xYJqR4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=EV2hSuAITOjZdQRfMUz7viFDYvhWp1ZXrZJWLzDEx0SzZgilYTHoQdujIw6unZvjO EI0JV+zPIBIwQNZJvMHUftrvluwN/cCqQ7XBtyI2v5uG05jp9lgodQqPOJErkeThFk T1KVZXCc1LP95nVce0Mt2fpkmOL3K3y+BmbYzPAs=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20210401013907.0b3b7fe8@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2021 02:47:58 -0700
To: iesg@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/J0qF06XrFsu8UY4YkxNj7E1F3Z4>
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: Thu, 01 Apr 2021 09:52:12 -0000

Dear Internet Engineering Steering Group,

There was an announcement for the WG review of TERM {1].  There was a 
saying of what was likely a general truth in 1992 which is documented 
in the Introduction Section of RFC 7282: "We reject: kings, 
presidents and voting."  The word "king" is defined in a dictionary 
(United States) [2] as "a male monarch of a major territorial 
unit".  Is it within the scope of the proposed working group to 
determine whether that word/saying is inclusive or exclusive?

The draft charter mentions "informational recommendations". The 
terminology is ambiguous as it could be interpreted as meaning that 
the objective of the proposed working group product is to provide 
information or that the objective is to make recommendations.

The draft charter mentions "industry initiatives".  Will the working 
group coordinate with industry initiatives from the United States 
and/or Europe only?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/6yVtXkj3wJjQxQA29On8-Lyvwmw/
2. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/king

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email