IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 06 April 2021 00:10 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 3551D3A2DBD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 17:10:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.078
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.078 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nostrum.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 8dxKD_HIAafc for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 17:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 395B93A2DBB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 17:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Zephyrus.local (76-218-40-253.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [76.218.40.253]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 1360AccO001127 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 5 Apr 2021 19:10:39 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1617667839; bh=sZu9M8NaPRgaEUpplEtCQCK96GZPrVBAZJqw7LzVslI=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Ewn0jr/7uBytEFZv3GlnvWepmEwUOhc84Yt5dMOVxJr2CPy8DA3fKxmigWAECxOyC ltYn516Yl6mgf0We3EXh5rTIHa+vyR4vjLQZYgvL9KsmmwfCtvZWtco00HAHa7XQ3M k67dXYaOOLhHzSOMpBV7dOsSaidCaJSymiZWPdQs=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 76-218-40-253.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [76.218.40.253] claimed to be Zephyrus.local
Subject: Re: WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>, 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>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <0f9e5476-2d8e-392f-d54c-178ecc322f78@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2021 19:10:33 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <792c4815-8c36-e5fa-9fbe-2e1cfa97239f@comcast.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------609476AC64A891AFE7A0D195"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/zyibH5T3ANS6hPYsqLEQuVzPE0g>
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 00:10:50 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email