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

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Tue, 06 April 2021 22:42 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 F28663A3408 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 15:42:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.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 4VIuFzJfZUEu for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 15:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cross.elm.relay.mailchannels.net (cross.elm.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.212.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DD203A3406 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 15:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B409342686; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 22:42:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a92.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-17-139.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.17.139]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id ED12D341B45; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 22:41:59 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a92.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 100.96.17.139 (trex/6.1.1); Tue, 06 Apr 2021 22:42:02 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Shoe-Lonely: 4ac542d0508aa676_1617748922054_44361605
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1617748922054:1983177036
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1617748922053
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a92.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a92.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7AC58A9FF; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 22:41:59 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=YDKRYMRdCkjYwv Jat/p6DGxXxY8=; b=WT05dulNC7tMUrmgmxuMi5MnFp4MpuZhwwx8oe4DvseUCm GUW2+sq0acbR9QOVDLVei9fZhXMaz70F8ULWBtPTDzsmj6A6n1vP/pNsYXIya1wq 2IMm02aGXWzMYsP4KlSGZ+/OA95w7RNDsf4vOLmVswQMalGQ8O1CUshXO5PdQ=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a92.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 58D038A9FB; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 22:41:57 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 17:41:54 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a92
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
Message-ID: <20210406224153.GT3828@localhost>
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> <130eadf6-70c2-9035-6ac2-b20dea7e9dba@joelhalpern.com> <20210406212509.GS3828@localhost> <10f0d34b-5294-4e14-d69a-5f8fc0a01c32@joelhalpern.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <10f0d34b-5294-4e14-d69a-5f8fc0a01c32@joelhalpern.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/nDFwkOKkQRitrLUJWB4zK0xNYao>
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 22:42:08 -0000

On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 05:30:39PM -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> On the other hand, regarding your followup comment, for the IESG to decide
> that some terms should be banned without having a community process would be
> a very bad result.  Fortunately, they have not proposed to do so.

Indeed, we can agree on this.  However, please see my earlier context
post about this.  We've seen much too heavy-handed an approach by the
IESG, and many serious arguments ignored.  Faking or manufacturing
consensus will do, process-wise, but it is not a good idea.  Perhaps
TERM WG can be an opportunity for a reset, and if it is chartered, I
hope so, though I fear it will be just more of the same.