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

Lars Eggert <> Thu, 01 April 2021 10:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 648C13A136F; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 03:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kVTo4uQW-lLZ; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 03:02:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:211:32ff:fe22:186f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E7FE3A136D; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 03:02:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:9831:5c1e:28c3:1a28] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:9831:5c1e:28c3:1a28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 65979600076; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 13:02:29 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=dkim; t=1617271349; bh=agxVZycwV0WWM/jmvODTorVC9fWMyKdBKAyOvC6erFA=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=NPM+MApTMrm3oYOqQmsdNPMkW+wRqRRzqugMFg+HgrspP25FGUoY57OtEiX96etHa 8JROCdT14enS5JuLg3EodnkQRbjA+ynburt84wXBfLLULQP+viKHo9SApFXSb8qNbV nwLKqzAcRi61soodR4DsL9sbLfGtRBLoYVUu23BI=
From: Lars Eggert <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_18F2AAA6-411E-4445-9926-31EBE900DEA8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
Subject: Re: WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 13:02:29 +0300
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: IESG <>,
To: S Moonesamy <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.
X-MailScanner-ID: 65979600076.AFC1C
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2021 10:02:49 -0000


On 2021-4-1, at 12:47, S Moonesamy <> wrote:
> There was an announcement for the WG review of TERM {1].  There was a saying of what was likely a general truth in 1992 which is documented in the Introduction Section of RFC 7282: "We reject: kings, presidents and voting."  The word "king" is defined in a dictionary (United States) [2] as "a male monarch of a major territorial unit".  Is it within the scope of the proposed working group to determine whether that word/saying is inclusive or exclusive?

not in my reading, since the charter says the document the WG will produce should "express general principles for
assessing when language is inclusive or exclusive".

(I'll also note that the text from RFC7282 is in fact a quote from a plenary presentation from 1992.)

> The draft charter mentions "informational recommendations". The terminology is ambiguous as it could be interpreted as meaning that the objective of the proposed working group product is to provide information or that the objective is to make recommendations.

I don't see this ambiguity, but I'm happy to change "informational recommendations" to "recommendations", if that is clearer?

> The draft charter mentions "industry initiatives".  Will the working group coordinate with industry initiatives from the United States and/or Europe only?

The charter isn't constraining the WG in this regard.