IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Tue, 13 April 2021 23:35 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 E895A3A1670 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:35:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.618
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.618 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 ONic0RFfNVXs for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58D7F3A166B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 755531604 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 19:35:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 13 Apr 2021 19:35:05 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=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=jVmExI UEm6GL0mpkbOxKex/xttWRTV/wf9bXZZ+8TzE=; b=ZkPT9SgN848e7IH2IUewJP nXWim9csj4wDZ5FuUkan01TQb/E9TlECxCc+L+Jd3VxcFwS/AdTH/5b0MjUsc2qC xpOVZxSfsgLLXHbGgQFCYEx84Z190fIe0GnaWz6lM6S7MeHz+qZkpfBLHzec5zNT 80Uu4Zjxf5dvmTnmpwCalYkEDR8sZWZ8H/YAqAl6rzE3L0K+i4CW1GxvpCEwfb6X tlHcHCYQ95w0lkldhc6p6okNUUxaum+BawfRwHNJsB3YQWqsJvx7QSsrVFOYZWAy l3HQkFUIfrIM/CZvzkxcnsNF5++TKZdUqtvDRDxZNZRIKOSJzO/3Jmy7wdpW0wxg ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:pyp2YLr6KQk0_0p4ya09rQ6Sh08RqygfMLyGYSLkAVCiiVJBUQh7Mw> <xme:pyp2YFr5kFWiCeW0XOBgaCddgBzU60TAUk8p0VIaL4l_U8YDwSYMZ4XH6LSavwEjL DyzT322fR1U2g>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrudeltddgvdduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgesrgdtre ertdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihhthhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfiho rhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepveefteduieegtd elvddvtddufeejjeffvdefteejieeulefgtdfggedtffektedunecukfhppedvfedruddv gedruddtrddujedtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilh hfrhhomhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:pyp2YINfGZGUPq1EoVPyopCnlD5_Mqncdozn61kpcEpdPuc5Q_0Mpw> <xmx:pyp2YO7IRH_bvTJ0VMDM2ZQfpVu4qPUZxRxhbjrXvsf3DTtlDX5Z5Q> <xmx:pyp2YK4le9h7UeM6JRt6j-fZQyX6CIglrt94xy7SnrEkw6dRYvFQ8g> <xmx:qCp2YJJUNjCxQmiRXGoUJF39m12yIF-59p963GUJIgqZm8oHoRehpg>
Received: from [192.168.1.121] (23-124-10-170.lightspeed.knvltn.sbcglobal.net [23.124.10.170]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 79C331080066 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 19:35:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <20210413200128.D5C3472D2739@ary.qy> <b946972c-99a8-5fab-43d9-894a6cc3a655@gmail.com>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <a7fad291-905c-5f00-af2d-bdcee8e73105@network-heretics.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 19:35:02 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b946972c-99a8-5fab-43d9-894a6cc3a655@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------429CE4D54864DB0D25F265C8"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/lH8AnS36ibkszStEvFRQbTd45Hk>
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, 13 Apr 2021 23:35:12 -0000

On 4/13/21 5:53 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>> Language policing is not part of the RFC Editor's job.
> That may be true today, but when we have a new regime for the RFC Series model it might change, or at least, this whole issue might become part of the style guide.

The style guide seems like a reasonable place for such advice (not 
policing) to be, and maintaining the style guide seems like the RFC 
Editor's job.

I would further recommend that the RFC Editor ask specific areas within 
IETF to make their consensus-based preferences for area-specific 
language known, e.g. the difference between on-path attack and in-path 
attack.   But I would like to have the RFC Editor be the 
compiler/maintainer of such information.

Keith

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email