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

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 10:06:39AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 10-Apr-21 09:39, Nico Williams wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 08:36:59AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >> On 10-Apr-21 04:05, Nico Williams wrote:
> >>> My proposal, fleshed out:
> >>>
> >>>  - direct the RSE to develop terminology standards;
> >>
> >> We don't yet know the future of the "RSE" role, but what is certain
> >> is that the IETF can't "direct" that person in any plausible model.
> > 
> > Tell me more.  I mean, I don't buy this assertion.  I'm quite certain
> > that the IETF could impose some requirements on publication within the
> > IETF stream.
> 
> Oh yes, but why wouldn't that happen before the draft goes to the
> RFC Editor in the first place?

Because we're talking about all future RFCs, not one?

> >>>  - direct the RPC to enforce the RSE's terminology standards;
> >>
> >> Generally speaking the RPC applies the agreed style guide, so
> >> any terminology standards or guidelines would be part of the style
> >> guide. We don't yet know the future of how the style guide is
> >> maintained.
> > 
> > Right, well, maybe TERM WG needs to provide input to the style guide.
> > That's essentially what it would be doing as proposed, only without
> > saying so.  So I don't see the problem with phrasing it in this way
> > (style guide update) instead.
> 
> That would be fine, but the proposed future RFC model would
> only treat that as input, not as a done deal.

Sure, but in both cases it's the IETF making these changes, so we get
to.  We might have to merge or sequence TERM with, what is it, RFCED?,
but whatever the case, it can be done.

> > [...]
> > 
> > To be more precise, the IESG as a whole would get no say apart from the
> > responsible AD, and there would be no IETF LC.
> 
> That would definitely needs an update to RFC2026.

Again, that's doable.

> > We're talking about a s/X/Y/g substitution that would be recommended or
> > required by the STYLE guide and which may not get applied.  The idea
> > with eliding IESG approval and IETF LC at this stage is that if this was
> > controversial, it would have been caught earlier, and to avoid divisive
> > later controversy like what we're seeing.
> 
> It's much better for everybody, I think, if it was caught earlier.

Yes.

Nico
--