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

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Wed, 07 April 2021 14:03 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
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 E79CA3A19BD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 07:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 fULKkUP-kRDU for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 07:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id ED2A13A19BB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 07:03:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 27934 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2021 13:40:48 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 7 Apr 2021 13:40:48 -0000
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> <792c4815-8c36-e5fa-9fbe-2e1cfa97239f@comcast.net> <D18D87D95723A68D8E75B6BC@PSB> <20210406152930.GR3828@localhost> <f52c46cf-03fb-6692-3a87-9b7db639f2e9@gmail.com> <130eadf6-70c2-9035-6ac2-b20dea7e9dba@joelhalpern.com> <20210406212509.GS3828@localhost> <10f0d34b-5294-4e14-d69a-5f8fc0a01c32@joelhalpern.com> <20210406224153.GT3828@localhost>
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <1eb21e0d-5e1f-4770-4c85-93965d2b466a@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 23:03:29 +0900
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: <20210406224153.GT3828@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/POUXAKmE8V57De2xYZCvtXQ7THk>
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: Wed, 07 Apr 2021 14:03:33 -0000

Nico Williams wrote:

> TERM WG can be an opportunity for a reset, and if it is chartered, I
> hope so

It is obvious that, from the name of the WG, that the WG is hopeless.

"an opportunity for a reset" can only mean to reset IETF entirely, which
is not terminology issues.


						Masataka Ohta