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

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sun, 18 April 2021 01:19 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 490EE3A3B10 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Apr 2021 18:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 0MnHxCF0PTLl for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Apr 2021 18:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD8913A3B12 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Apr 2021 18:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1lXw5m-000G5Z-M1; Sat, 17 Apr 2021 21:19:18 -0400
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2021 21:19:12 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
Message-ID: <76B88A0DEAEEE23607210B40@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <20210414155741.GN9612@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> <DF5DCE5F-C1AA-4131-AC3F-56429ADC97CF@piuha.net> <1199e51c-f275-149b-0a9f-a67cb71ee44f@gmail.com> <20210414155741.GN9612@localhost>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/MOUTm_IKjjdQWNgp5POoFK7uVWQ>
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: Sun, 18 Apr 2021 01:19:28 -0000


--On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:57 -0500 Nico Williams
<nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 09:19:58AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter
> wrote:
>> Completely agreed. But my concern is that the RFC Series as a
>> whole would look pretty stupid if (to take a strawman
>> example) the IETF
>                                          ^^^^^^^^
> 
> My daughter's future mother-in-law told me that some other
> lady she was talking to recently objected to the word
> 'strawman', much like some here object to MITM.  Off with your
> head, Brian!

Out of curiosity, would she prefer "strawperson", "strawentity",
"Aunt Sally"?  or how about "paper tiger", which doesn't mean
the same thing but might be close in some contexts.. and not
only is "tiger" not gender specific but I've never heard of
tigers taking specific offense about the names they are called
(although I somehow doubt that those tigers who speak human
languages would call themselves "tiger" so they might be
offended on that basis).

    john