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

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Wed, 07 April 2021 12:39 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@gmail.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 51AA53A4415 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 05:39:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 GxfKM4iyVviW for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 05:39:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x334.google.com (mail-wm1-x334.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::334]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D8F63A4410 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 05:39:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x334.google.com with SMTP id y20-20020a1c4b140000b029011f294095d3so1063099wma.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 05:39:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=7PqC0HtUb2zEdozA5PhF1saW+ML6cZakaKyt5gHuF9s=; b=L9v4Zf7GHwLHxg60nRuTYkSfjnPNHV2WU+MMD6PWMLgs7d9W6Gf5NRF+Y4EoWMsPsD OIMeOVlIlL5E40RbT/sh7u/yAe/2eF0HdKUp7S+5Zebwbt6+ZjT+JFg1PVcKKJhK0yyf CLBm+JMIEZgLW/lPowSbdJViPzGyamH9spgPZ36gKy+zAxwVL3ByuHTAKORU2lBZzvZh nVohrQORPwk3sNBCWJflbh0cew2JkT792hdWGcYc0BwuVp/7QtAykqZM66f4Y4EzxS4J mOD4vn8fEzCoXpeKHOsm8r4x/8Mm5NKtiCop1Y9D54G65A+iS/3sEMQleV6zfB6dFkW2 fW0A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=7PqC0HtUb2zEdozA5PhF1saW+ML6cZakaKyt5gHuF9s=; b=EinGpuAgYqoNYd4f2McztHSR/I/YXA9IfBCgFOTnZia/56id4Fg4E9kyiNR2Sp7Xaw oeD4UF1VtPb+AjmCkHZwBRrB044EyiVitaljkGVr+Km7DZY4PyWTF7DZcwaX3OsMXidE BAwSSgpF6eJ6jepxd50zR3rLjO9P+4thaYFEMGioOqugp5x7b+OO5DN/rE2k3X3txFv1 CvDWIvxNVj2MAL3r9m11CwT9RBq5PzjXFzzNAhK+eOuEdh8qA1RJEcPkIvJeWTa3MtA4 d6GUMbW0toUfLqHPl6yyEPr1mX2snKT6FNUsU1q7URcwQHfA4p8ZSQkdyA5UaGMfyMFX iS1w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532W6EgHS3zygVwew3U9QXfQcUOOqOfjYEnd6Sf5M4dgYdlsV/G9 HuDsL5/uwP9EngnhU2e/5W4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzmuDsND/gps8W95r/PehZsRfmXaC4y/meaPNf0Mc17zUk6NJO/bLw4AOwOEBoOSf0yY+uj0g==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:9808:: with SMTP id a8mr2867882wme.47.1617799139880; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 05:38:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.8.102] ([85.255.234.102]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f8sm17265683wro.29.2021.04.07.05.38.58 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 07 Apr 2021 05:38:59 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Subject: Re: WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <f52c46cf-03fb-6692-3a87-9b7db639f2e9@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 13:38:58 +0100
Cc: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <16D2311D-D0BA-4B0B-A8D1-A4CDD9F1DC92@gmail.com>
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>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/WASouhKP24ay_n2GtrxP2YRj718>
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 12:39:06 -0000


> On 6 Apr 2021, at 21:58, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>  but I also believe
> that the IESG should consider not only whether there is consensus on the
> charter text, but also the basic question whether this issue should be
> handled by the IETF at all, rather than by the RFC Editor. There is a
> strong case for the latter.
> 
> Regards
>   Brian Carpenter

Exactly my thoughts.

We engineers are good at protocol engineering we should stick to that.

The RFC Editor is good with words and for years have been quietly steering us toward better ways to express our thoughts. Let’s leave them to do that.

As to inclusion and the supporting organisational change, there are professional experts out there that know far more than us, we should contract them to make a study and place recommendations before the IETF community.

Let’s stick to our core competence and get help with the other stuff.

- Stewart