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

Nick Hilliard <> Thu, 01 April 2021 11:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4892E3A1853; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 04:09:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zb2zRrD-amsC; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 04:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3674F3A1852; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 04:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from crumpet.local ( [] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 131B95Je072352 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 1 Apr 2021 12:09:05 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] (may be forged) claimed to be crumpet.local
Subject: Re: WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
To: S Moonesamy <>
References: <>
From: Nick Hilliard <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 12:09:04 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.16; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.47
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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: Thu, 01 Apr 2021 11:09:34 -0000

S Moonesamy wrote on 01/04/2021 10:47:
> There was an announcement for the WG review of TERM {1].  There was a 
> saying of what was likely a general truth in 1992 which is documented in 
> the Introduction Section of RFC 7282: "We reject: kings, presidents and 
> voting."  The word "king" is defined in a dictionary (United States) [2] 
> as "a male monarch of a major territorial unit".  Is it within the scope 
> of the proposed working group to determine whether that word/saying is 
> inclusive or exclusive?

Maybe we could change the term "kings" to "princes", as this would be 
more geographically inclusive?

I've been contacted by many princes over the years from all over the 
world the world, all whom seemed to be interested in giving me money, if 
only I could provide certain personal details.