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

Brian E Carpenter <> Fri, 09 April 2021 22:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C85973A139B for <>; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 15:06:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 gwMndC-ShFRX for <>; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 15:06:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::532]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A99A3A139A for <>; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 15:06:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id p12so4915383pgj.10 for <>; Fri, 09 Apr 2021 15:06:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lq5nhtNF9Q0ItmAseqPg2r+v/FDji+8KN6LVWvFlEw8=; b=FFYz0l7mR17txX/pVwaMlbVQUP4OiTGfXpUEb82CkFYh2ZIwmF3o7PA0mki2ZsJDIc nMc5RsLApqbFqyYOKM7P211yFySJQev7sBEH6e0qfE5ZnOq+QvTlSBmL2mXOwn0R8y/a ey4Hihv4Wxy9XXQqFMk5+iHwR6R3Mj5eM7ku5Ygw90qYg5Zfo+c1DX7ZcBBIn6lCcwb2 lo9hQMvx6SPRl3u6NlcQMhM3kHcBDqEiZizhc3bB3FjR3QYrc4Mz//BVXJXj9J+LFGEj bOlP15bFjlEXfl07yfRkKrf3GM+GoQtR28vYTQeSr61+xvjXmakX8dKy2p++mPpFsuVM aWQQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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=lq5nhtNF9Q0ItmAseqPg2r+v/FDji+8KN6LVWvFlEw8=; b=qU8YZBq7VWFSnnkhkT8mrl6FsP1s2B2aoyaMg+GEOUZ7pKFFLvhREos5Hk8h0BYvSj jQBFbLi9N3NwPlrYQMClGk/DDsjNzjmhROXVvqz4bxLEmzMhy1HZkX1CtRyDwkMxo19d f7Wli2j3No4ijyQQ+ZnrvP7zOC6YbLZphQlzPUsr4KTqpawKKvi/zjPTPjd9HRMLwdXa IvNzo2wLNiE4/nJSTf9ALBqcOsq2q2n7eeYFiYFPgMuPEA6YkjRtDaV8ZNHHv+n6i72c MxPaghfpKp93/gwnfOOzouupwNfdcttw+tNOVjPtzer5Sh+c+yQN5hQ8S+J73mdtcIaL gHYQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532JgfpmMcNOG1fy1AOCcJvG/2UYn46UVlwmuAwXE6OJIGZKn+Rq PixriIGiVBlrUalyhuLKYa5H9zGWVWOf6w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz8fKmblpdRpYtpZ8mSqeoYIX0tanOddxuHWo75pzY6xaJZ+7FAneKm+4dR2qXOGlRjmp/TUg==
X-Received: by 2002:a65:6792:: with SMTP id e18mr15489223pgr.256.1618006002897; Fri, 09 Apr 2021 15:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id k10sm3024149pfk.205.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 09 Apr 2021 15:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
To: Nico Williams <>
Cc: John Scudder <>, "" <>
References: <> <> <D18D87D95723A68D8E75B6BC@PSB> <20210406152930.GR3828@localhost> <> <> <20210406212509.GS3828@localhost> <> <20210409160539.GA9612@localhost> <> <20210409213907.GC9612@localhost>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2021 10:06:39 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210409213907.GC9612@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Fri, 09 Apr 2021 22:06:47 -0000

On 10-Apr-21 09:39, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 08:36:59AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 10-Apr-21 04:05, Nico Williams wrote:
>>> My proposal, fleshed out:
>>>  - direct the RSE to develop terminology standards;
>> We don't yet know the future of the "RSE" role, but what is certain
>> is that the IETF can't "direct" that person in any plausible model.
> Tell me more.  I mean, I don't buy this assertion.  I'm quite certain
> that the IETF could impose some requirements on publication within the
> IETF stream.

Oh yes, but why wouldn't that happen before the draft goes to the
RFC Editor in the first place?

>>>  - direct the RPC to enforce the RSE's terminology standards;
>> Generally speaking the RPC applies the agreed style guide, so
>> any terminology standards or guidelines would be part of the style
>> guide. We don't yet know the future of how the style guide is
>> maintained.
> Right, well, maybe TERM WG needs to provide input to the style guide.
> That's essentially what it would be doing as proposed, only without
> saying so.  So I don't see the problem with phrasing it in this way
> (style guide update) instead.

That would be fine, but the proposed future RFC model would
only treat that as input, not as a done deal.

>>>  - whenever an author or authors, as well as the responsible AD,
>>>    disagree with editorial changes made or proposed by the RPC, they may
>>>    override the RPC's change,
>> That's always been a matter of negotiation. I don't see that changing,
>> but if it does, it will be an RFC Series policy matter. We don't yet know
>> the future of how RFC Series policy is set.
> See above.
>>>  - but if the RPC feels strongly about it, they may request a WG LC on
>>>    this issue.
>> That seems very weird. The RPC as an organisation has no standing in
>> the IETF process.
> They would be applying the style guide.
>>>  - There would be no IESG or IETF involvement in resolving any such
>>>    disputes.
>> That's self-contradictory. You just suggested a WG LC, i.e. part of the
>> IETF process. And of course if a draft is changed after IETF LC,
>> it needs agreement from at least the AD, and possibly a repeat of the
>> IETF LC and IESG approval.
> To be more precise, the IESG as a whole would get no say apart from the
> responsible AD, and there would be no IETF LC.

That would definitely needs an update to RFC2026.

> We're talking about a s/X/Y/g substitution that would be recommended or
> required by the STYLE guide and which may not get applied.  The idea
> with eliding IESG approval and IETF LC at this stage is that if this was
> controversial, it would have been caught earlier, and to avoid divisive
> later controversy like what we're seeing.

It's much better for everybody, I think, if it was caught earlier.
But RFC8962 does not apply.