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

Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> Tue, 06 April 2021 02:10 UTC

Return-Path: <mstjohns@comcast.net>
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 9F91C3A323B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 19:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.798
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.798 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=comcast.net
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 AL5LL9_v9mAj for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 19:10:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-02v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-02v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:34]) (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 60E333A3238 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 19:10:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-ch2-01v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.97]) by resqmta-ch2-02v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id TaCZlNMlyGhhbTbASlI7fN; Tue, 06 Apr 2021 02:10:12 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=20190202a; t=1617675012; bh=geviJgncg3dCnRrq+M9gxHx2iTtE42rtaxZKgUUkNrQ=; h=Received:Received:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=lhNLsaB3gT+egYNLmsvZ9qguOZnp6Zs1IwirVkov5TdvjndtUKYgWb//Ro4XPsCCV Kftz14L3Z+hlIu865GWCTKVftuVtUfchtF03Oh6koYyjScalEO5tG0ImAm7HtcvM/N vdsplKf/svwkctc9O/Ll1h2utRV3zK30nJA3tbYAZq2hM4WrVarNvR0KQcodoZPyNn oVPOdHZMoLJ9g3wsFKd5DudMR3arvKrlBORluNe3pai+33g8iw/ol8llUMC3PYaZcE 0NINMhyn1hi0wWxS97dVmu/8iJJ2CpqfVcYshZK9e2OypAjW+3mOVE0AKpWD/YK8Bp G7hCKKdOfW/Hw==
Received: from [192.168.1.23] ([138.88.204.18]) by resomta-ch2-01v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTPSA id TbAIlQCVg7swdTbAJlO21H; Tue, 06 Apr 2021 02:10:10 +0000
X-Xfinity-VAAS: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrudejfedgheehucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuvehomhgtrghsthdqtfgvshhipdfqfgfvpdfpqffurfetoffkrfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedtudenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtsegrtderredtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefoihgthhgrvghlucfuthflohhhnhhsuceomhhsthhjohhhnhhssegtohhmtggrshhtrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpefghfetveekgfehieeltdeltedvfedtgefhhfffieffhfduieegveeuhfevleevtdenucffohhmrghinhepihgvthhfrdhorhhgnecukfhppedufeekrdekkedrvddtgedrudeknecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehhvghloheplgduledvrdduieekrddurddvfegnpdhinhgvthepudefkedrkeekrddvtdegrddukedpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmshhtjhhohhhnshestghomhgtrghsthdrnhgvthdprhgtphhtthhopehivghtfhesihgvthhfrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtoheprggurghmsehnohhsthhruhhmrdgtohhm
X-Xfinity-VMeta: sc=-100.00;st=legit
Subject: Re: WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, 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> <0f9e5476-2d8e-392f-d54c-178ecc322f78@nostrum.com>
From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <d6e60619-cbe1-9079-a280-d3cbb40298fc@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 22:10:02 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0f9e5476-2d8e-392f-d54c-178ecc322f78@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------6A31B90CC20C9B25377F1F55"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/pOa52S2JVcDpsHk4pK2BNxHMHOo>
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 02:10:19 -0000

On 4/5/2021 8:10 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> On 4/5/21 18:31, Michael StJohns wrote:
>> On 4/5/2021 7:11 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
>>>
>>> For some reason I can't find the original announcement, so I'll just 
>>> do this bare.
>>>
>>>
>>> Given the general language of RFC 2418, my best take is that _*it's 
>>> inappropriate for the IETF to charter a working group on this 
>>> topic*_.   It's not a technical topic, and it does not fit the 
>>> general WG model.
>>>
>>> To my best recollection (which means I may have missed one), we've 
>>> never chartered a WG solely for the purpose of writing documents 
>>> that purport to modify the way the IETF does business.
>>>
>> *sigh* Ignore the above. Joel H reminded me of Poised, Poisson of the 
>> previous century and Newtrk of the previous decade.   I'm sure there 
>> are others.
>>
>
> Yeah, it's pretty much every working group that has ever formed in the 
> GEN area:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/concluded/#WGs-general-area
>
> /a
>
Go take a detailed look at that list.  Roughly 1/2 of them are BOFs that 
never produced anything, roughly 1/4th are WGs that mostly didn't 
produce anything (unclear if the IDs they produced resulted in RFCs).  
The remainder were targeted groups that were dealing with moving us from 
a known point A to a known point B. E.g. we knew what what we needed to 
do, we were pretty sure we knew the neighborhood where we needed to 
arrive, we just weren't sure how to do it.

I'd place IASA2, the multiple instantiations of the Nomcom process 
(poised, poisson, nomcom), ianaplan, mtgvenue and the IPR groups in that 
last category.   IASA2, ianaplan and mtgvenue are all recent creations.  
Finally, IASA2 and ianaplan had some hefty legal requirements driving them.

TERM has few of those characteristics: there's no agreement on where 
point B needs to be and not a lot of agreement on where point A actually 
is.

But yes, my initial statement was way off.

Later, Mike