IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 06 April 2021 05:04 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 97EDE3A1406; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 22:04:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 Vtr_glBtbuvy; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 22:03:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A70B3A13FE; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 22:03:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.152] (p548dc178.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.193.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FDwRJ1GVPzyXj; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 07:03:56 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
Subject: Re: WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <D18D87D95723A68D8E75B6BC@PSB>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2021 07:03:55 +0200
Cc: terminology@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <76688C49-FC99-456A-84A9-9CA3AD74C9CF@tzi.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>
To: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/RPClziM3VkKo0B4dyywFvKLOIyY>
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: Tue, 06 Apr 2021 05:04:04 -0000

On 6. Apr 2021, at 06:08, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
> 
> establish specific directions

Wikipedia has a category of content called “original research” (which is ruled out in Wikipedia articles).
This was established to keep a lid on what is best described as “crackpot science”.
It is now a more general guideline that sometimes gets in the way (2 * 2 = 4 is not really “original research”), but overall has served Wikipedia well.
It seems to me the current charter proposal text is trying to go into a similar direction, which might help a lot with keeping rough consensus attainable.
(And, of course, promptly it is attempted to weaken those guide rails...)

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email