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

"Andrew G. Malis" <> Thu, 01 April 2021 12:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7FEF3A0CC5; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 05:05:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RamNwF2GHlpI; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 05:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 802533A0CBA; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 05:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j17so821235qvo.13; Thu, 01 Apr 2021 05:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=7al7JhMKbG6IPMeS85L/dPKEreJKKHof4hAKC1E05hI=; b=Ck6JgwDSa/HkxA9o3aWaebU1u5IT8cM5LfwtgkFdxpVg21ZEZMD1UpTmIBith9BHv2 xGzCTFGVZ5L/9ABj6xOnCGhBcjkuomCIUuBvQEK6pXDlp/syRIfnNZvZcnu3/aFVW0Sm cFU5HzPjV2IyGXteFk2McU7cLhbT1eZ1IQ7j1/nsi/lQ4KJCWp1030RzduGJlhFZAq/Z xSApDf7Z7U1kSNJZRy9m3lLfHhBiJxrIcsCA0JnQX2/4vxHuSkd5Es6q3STzBkA7GJEq ljIjL2MzdCtAhZta9P2eWL3NOJsS0Msq2l2t1/1fVzzDkHf0PftSk1qw0xg1Bp9+hMLZ HQpQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7al7JhMKbG6IPMeS85L/dPKEreJKKHof4hAKC1E05hI=; b=N1tIX9i+OME+OOnRNy9V9ERw6cmpLQ9IfApF2F3AQCshmtZ4bjywBmfXls9hZHA3j8 +Scp+8NlW0VjYF+GH01d7llBm1nm7vJtqDMieCzAtZOk+KZAv+Y6bUvoPTHYhOoeTYUp pakLTSLNOjxD7wOanazmuodeDpX82JlOKSsM3Mu4JMf/XUcdZUc5e0bkFPFKxvUGyDsO ljDzVoPo5xQIQ1uO8cE0UAIeJvAgcmQ+M0QBPPxDnioUsNkhRvyyT4kUyB2YQTYmWmX/ 3iuPHRRM1zs51X3koNt+NXNm3mI14prP8UEnOtOiUei7oTKJrJN+7hZb3zoyHxbzal73 bJQg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530bUVwetsLS4T8Zk3Nn4YuoMmfE5/T7iSxsuhPhaAJkGuJ9/89N SZ4xmQkYkt8qyYJDHl93uP5ZHF52ogQa4T4BMe4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz9teOm+nC7PGNWpTa4IAQ0AfAOREVxJLhHe57rPRdDO6Lu/Phf9SG/WMDEJAbu6sBspXyozzWeUFDF3+JjYLA=
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:aa45:: with SMTP id e5mr7332654qvb.44.1617278714726; Thu, 01 Apr 2021 05:05:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 08:04:59 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
To: Lars Eggert <>
Cc: S Moonesamy <>, IESG <>, IETF Discussion <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004b519505bee80b73"
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 12:05:22 -0000

S. and Lars,

I was at that plenary presentation. The obvious intention of Dave's quote
is that we reject "monarchs", but it is true that the word used at the time
(again, this was 1992) was "kings". But RFC 7292 also makes it clear that
this is a direct quote from Dave's presentation.

But that really has nothing to do with the proposed charter, which says
that the purpose of the WG is to "produce an Informational RFC containing
recommendations on the use of inclusive terminology in the technical work
produced by IETF participants". What's not in the charter of that WG is to
go back and review the language in every existing RFC.

Once the WG's work is done, and there's such an RFC, anyone is free to use
it to propose errata on existing RFCs and comments on other ancillary IETF
material, such as its web pages, the Tao, and so on. A new WG could even be
chartered at that time to do this sort of thing.

But I don't see how this has any effect on the proposed charter at hand.


On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 6:03 AM Lars Eggert <> wrote:

> Hi,
> 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.
> Thanks,
> Lars