IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se> Thu, 08 April 2021 21:20 UTC

Return-Path: <leifj@mnt.se>
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 067BE3A1D2D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 14:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnt-se.20150623.gappssmtp.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 IfCWXakZqKWJ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 14:20:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x230.google.com (mail-lj1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::230]) (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 E5CFD3A1D39 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 14:20:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x230.google.com with SMTP id l14so1089994ljb.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Apr 2021 14:20:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnt-se.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=evcQ+2HvZujrB1zkIX4Vaxifx3DEx56iYVCsfvLkpOs=; b=oV0qkieq3EBOPW8tfTltqaGuOTQhsp4uK3KsS7XGM6tmHiVh3KjqEVry1B69Cl3OVG bPur0qww7BOrrDVkMe+2hpn5lQQ2QQQOrGzs8qgo8hhhALMQ2kdiugH945cooiL37YR0 DeV4gGZcTDJL5PFw7mrtvBNQi895fNMx3fWNkfHzIBweIQvscFs+B1xK5bM7QBNctG4R av7XekEjiRIwnVaycWuV9h9VjYNryYveHjEICGr0lwZuiPtozgKBj7sthmqh72cP858y hc7PUpqXKjLteUuQ4SOVFSf8Sqj70tXrmBqPp8ZFI96VTEj2TtZFGus8NmrvpLqo9nbZ Bq7g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=evcQ+2HvZujrB1zkIX4Vaxifx3DEx56iYVCsfvLkpOs=; b=qV2Uqj9mzX800V/wCnM92TeuSQXTBA2UtI2JIwbvB8g9hXGRaqV081/ImwtLsPNrKO 3oeBCJy9srbZTfuE6CO0CA5g32LRu/mmSGxZKPTq254J0C0UO4ADjaNHdZwr9NKVkXCj E1rPaPFHKpRxsvZ2Vok8CRfUnQmW+PDuoEGw7mjD2HkTBsHzu+XjVczxSh81dxvq4d/o JysZKK9HeEPbR/o4RJjaREwxgWQnmys1ohLG0DxTuVXSPhU+txXLtReojmUW/fkXj/LX 0Xtn7iSjsYq2Qy5v7AlJ5dwiProkisn93sMRKx4MT6uqYO0RD+nEEMHxKJve8HqaBKVM k4KA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533ZniwiSjteCi9ppz4ni9azJRFmnEG6/ci/W02FQ80OHuozZNiM fw3Y8G7WpMXHH38gogpXkrDK9h82fbtKFw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwxDdgsgOG/U6YCQH8DHNBGKsZCPIjpfqac4CUyZYEQFyAwi0xBWQJdhsXz1RE2kDMQa/BYgA==
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:6a17:: with SMTP id f23mr7624701ljc.91.1617916810439; Thu, 08 Apr 2021 14:20:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.173] (h-98-128-229-174.NA.cust.bahnhof.se. [98.128.229.174]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o16sm58795lfu.228.2021.04.08.14.20.09 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 08 Apr 2021 14:20:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
Cc: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <16D2311D-D0BA-4B0B-A8D1-A4CDD9F1DC92@gmail.com> <A5F8069C-E6F7-4DA4-8C9F-665EEECFFE13@mnt.se> <tslzgyaugdp.fsf@suchdamage.org>
From: Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se>
Message-ID: <e7ff4aa1-60bb-f437-62d7-8c6995aa6eee@mnt.se>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 23:20:08 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <tslzgyaugdp.fsf@suchdamage.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/_4j5ZxYT5sRWRZe4CDWh4H28Iew>
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: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 21:20:29 -0000

> Again, I think that can work fine, but it is something to consider.
> 

No doubt.

I think the point is we have existence proof that this can be done.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email