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

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Tue, 06 April 2021 21:52 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.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 E81503A3255 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 14:52:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 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_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.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 cR_snvGyVZNB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 14:52:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 161C03A28CD for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 14:52:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BB71E18 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 17:52:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 06 Apr 2021 17:52:15 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=eQYFZTv1OvO7MZ2+e5JR8H43RvCC03o74hcxJoW63 Zs=; b=ASCIMxYHAfMD8oFEJiaCiWWwhal8884lhYuxewTfH2Iqg+flRErk1bbsk ECq/HW1vm4foHT1YGmuVi4KaQKfuNEeKawu0m52iqzEyAwG9SbFlMkF0BV6D+oEu PI1DzN/5zIChaQ38SUZJ/kdrw9JwZmusLo/tqwAprwSJM3ik2xSbbBKqZD4dceMF tQ+G3fqpQ7e2VPsLKdZih7imeBEhGtl4BX+47QDRmjFiNNBEN8m15qkQHlLdPShE kgBqZvetVBc8CnnVdw3zP1yIEIHMpx5gE1lr9KGiM+YUZfimZEbAJjnJ09hkkiSy nYAT/d6iufaRXdFaeWxXNu1zlwyjA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:DthsYEDZ2tclsNZIbqpx7-L0SUHl_2AfxQsdW4WDQSVrC6COUpSeaQ> <xme:DthsYGgcVJZz9xuF7Ko5xJj3GI3XFwy2jwfY5NbGyy1LHaTIj-BW08CAP57OpnEBm 4XkYf69BOyfNw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrudejiedgtdefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgfgsehtje ertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthif ohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeekvdeggfelue elkeeuhfffheeghffhkeeuvdduudeihfehudefffdtgfdtkeffgfenucfkphepjeefrddu udefrdduieelrdeiudenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrih hlfhhrohhmpehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:DthsYHngleoGdc1SCGpLLqdrkz1OGJGzcoU1s0aSPEgOoQ6pl3RHYg> <xmx:DthsYKy17KvNSJHodqfMjXPwJFUWXhpBsE5TEDSGWiJasFk7WIwhcg> <xmx:DthsYJSm1b2GLdMxR6GwQxiOZkHdWl06mDDLuZoNPt3jLnz8ElWtWQ> <xmx:DthsYDCP33oVILB_LkLYuMq8LB0bRuBeX3GzhUqK0I0dzq3n97fzcw>
Received: from [192.168.30.202] (c-73-113-169-61.hsd1.tn.comcast.net [73.113.169.61]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id DCE4A24005D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 17:52:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
To: ietf@ietf.org
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>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <5ec375b0-69d0-daf2-b50c-1eb2961d2932@network-heretics.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 17:52:13 -0400
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: <f52c46cf-03fb-6692-3a87-9b7db639f2e9@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/er4nWKVMh46ln4VRErHdMQLm9b4>
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: Tue, 06 Apr 2021 21:52:21 -0000

On 4/6/21 4:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> I believe that the charter is good enough as it is, 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.

+1