IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Last-Call] [babel] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-babel-information-model-11.txt

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Tue, 20 October 2020 17:20 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87D363A11BC; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 10:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Sz6oz_U9rdLr; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 10:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (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 5770E3A11BB; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 10:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 09KHKdlk005626 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 20 Oct 2020 13:20:43 -0400
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 10:20:38 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
Cc: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>, rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-babel-information-model.all@ietf.org, babel@ietf.org, rtg-ads@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
Message-ID: <20201020172038.GN39170@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <8EAB2DD3-8337-42D6-ACC6-82197CC958E9@apnic.net> <C24C7E7B-DDE9-42BD-B71E-7FF48263CA8B@hopcount.ca> <87v9f5vz8v.wl-jch@irif.fr> <8A4D5F57-4F4D-4DE3-BEC2-EB7118069CA2@apnic.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <8A4D5F57-4F4D-4DE3-BEC2-EB7118069CA2@apnic.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/xbiecKXamCRWCQCyT3zl6eHjKrQ>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] [babel] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-babel-information-model-11.txt
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 17:20:53 -0000

On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 03:36:42AM +1100, Geoff Huston wrote:
> I’m was not raising an issue with the use of units of one tenth of a second - I was expressing the thought that the term “centisecond” is an unusual term in English, and as a native speaker I haver also followed a convention of using the units of “tenths of seconds”, “hundredths of a second” and then heading to milliseconds, nano seconds. Until now I had never seen the term “centiseconds” and I would claim that I am familiar with scientific English.

For what little it's worth, I think I have pretty solid credentials for
"familiarity with scientific English" (Ph.D. in Chemistry), and I find the
deci- and centi- SI prefixes to be completely natural.  It is perhaps
interesting that deca- and hecto- are not so natural, which I might ascribe
to the liter being a rather large volume on laboratory scales, so that
centiliters and deciliters are often used.

-Ben

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email