IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Mon, 19 April 2021 12:44 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 E737A3A302E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 05:44:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, 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 NJPiRqk2RhQk for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 05:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A3EB3A302A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 05:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8947228 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 08:44:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 19 Apr 2021 08:44:21 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding: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=P96DE1Cfjq6+XK2Oa1QE1f0eNlWF2tnHwNwEM9tRc mg=; b=hPV6Vs1GPo9De0iGoY+Fk3jGOZbDjdCdgrdAwA9XNnh+Ty6KdGyv3uYCB RkompONJXkkTVcW1PReU5JZ3ZfrN0d4nNrFmlHxxR2t/kB6oVSoeSvppZ38uQddf B/aVA+cYSySCqq0bEYmQy4rusvEZLZTkqolYKfsazWiGWV9e5xL9fBIqAkAKukkx +fvvEu8yW3/GlBhN+mBq6xHW5BwvAhzR4Yw2qzdElCHQbMsE3qMj9qfWtIIYw/yJ 8e7CsT0bpbNPpNzy8LCKO2hPZgtGARpBz+qFNfrMr5ux/Vd5qdz40kAMAgqkcA9P R4ufo4kjKJeW/mp2Z3RbU0ssZFScA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:JHt9YKmj-zAibKvxSICa6IjKoLa64nVYdPXh-uHmMVWum7So_GmJSg> <xme:JHt9YB2h8KWpl4M1-agmBHwUZv0oISwIb2QpwAr3lBhkqs_gAO52pIJ5n_zY3KKTM CD8AVQFFuOW8A>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvddtgedgheejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgfgsehtke ertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthif ohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeehhfeutdehfe fgfefghfekhefguefgieduueegjeekfeelleeuieffteefueduueenucfkphepvdefrddu vdegrddutddrudejtdenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrih hlfhhrohhmpehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:JHt9YIr_UHzATgBes_E_muD9OQl7J2PlNUFv_oU9F_mCWrF69lDxTw> <xmx:JHt9YOk1LjhwFsLTOjkgHgb5JZWer3JY0NRjRvWZ7vdzq0GYszp2Iw> <xmx:JHt9YI0OLG1vCriX1MYIq29NoVD306ETGgYQaU_M1Gt5HfR27yjzDw> <xmx:JXt9YD22S39pcLbmemq9tGha7xl-dmMo2M-_F35QwHt0AdFh8SaCFQ>
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 B6F9E24005A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 08:44:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <20210413200535.BF29C72D2919@ary.qy> <7ac5ecf5-734e-7f63-a000-dea09cec1d0a@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <5198680E-3555-48FF-9FF5-77105DBC06D7@akamai.com> <20210415163423.GA10108@miplet.aaaaa.org> <1f2941bd-bc05-45ff-89f3-d852f470e53e@dogfood.fastmail.com> <20210418161626.GH2544@miplet.aaaaa.org> <50f396d2-9d19-9ffc-b602-b27fbe7572a8@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <20cabdb0-3d66-46fd-4ce5-a9790f388a1f@network-heretics.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 08:44:19 -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: <50f396d2-9d19-9ffc-b602-b27fbe7572a8@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/tdJ3enN9AoFMgXuyikr4vTFeZ_Q>
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: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:44:32 -0000

On 4/19/21 7:37 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote:

> However, from comments on NYT article, it is obvious that, even
> in US, there is no such consensus, not even roughly. 

I don't think any conclusion about consensus within the US can be drawn 
from the NYT article comments.   The sample is too small and not 
representative of the US population.

Keith

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email