IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status-01.txt

Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk> Mon, 02 April 2012 14:23 UTC

Return-Path: <dnsext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DCC121F850B; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 07:23:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1333376610; bh=g/pceFs4yR1+Wm3PQPYewquDgoLrfZrQgii8I2ail68=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:MIME-Version:Cc: Subject:Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Help:List-Subscribe:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: Sender; b=yAP8tnDYvwrna1cK7+v5P59tVrevlhIz3i5hOrgL3pQGsk4dAjnCAKaTMPjDn2p7T D5X8IeVoFVti9QyJNwu8iXKzQBBQ+po0Mlpr7zFNPve01cS7X5DddAyS34HnfP/dNx vJy3jCvASfFxxzQWjQOMumLuO9839SZxwTw3TEY0=
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B98021F8552 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 07:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.11
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EADuqCzIEkuE for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 07:23:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.avalus.com (mail.avalus.com [89.16.176.221]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8968A21F851D for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 07:23:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.avalus.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E3AFAC5610E; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 15:23:24 +0100 (BST)
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:23:24 +0100
From: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
To: Dick Franks <rwfranks@acm.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Message-ID: <61757DF72395A302C4DDDFE0@Ximines.local>
In-Reply-To: <CAKW6Ri6Vr8UYwrOnT5Wr-JYeVvqRVw5=bGEAFtnBfNNeuyO4Ag@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20120326142607.26742.59731.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <8CC420BD-C5B6-4444-AC48-A0D127DE7B83@gmail.com> <E9B97EAE-2820-43C8-AA68-2AB32C748955@vpnc.org> <CAKW6Ri6Vr8UYwrOnT5Wr-JYeVvqRVw5=bGEAFtnBfNNeuyO4Ag@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: DNSEXT Working Group <dnsext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status-01.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org


--On 2 April 2012 14:37:42 +0100 Dick Franks <rwfranks@acm.org> wrote:

>> "obsolescing" makes me gag hard enough to call it a problem, not a nit.
>
>
> Ugly;  but apparently not obsolete, according to my English (EN-GB)
> dictionary!
>
>     obsolesce   verb  (obsolesced, obsolescing)
>     intr  to become obsolete; to be going out of use. 19c.
>
>     Chambers 21st Century Dictionary

It is an intransitive verb (see 'intr') above.  You cannot obsolesce
something. You can, however, make something obselete.

    Adding a newly specified algorithm to the registry with a
-   implementation status other than OPTIONAL SHALL entail obsolescing
-   this document and replacing the table in Section 2.2 (with the new
+   implementation status other than OPTIONAL SHALL entail making
+   this document obsolete and replacing the table in Section 2.2 (with the
    new algorithm entry).  Altering the status column value of any existing
-   algorithm in the registry SHALL entail obsolescing this document and
-   replacing the table in Section 2.2 above.
+   algorithm in the registry SHALL entail making this document obsolete and
+   replacing the table in Section 2.2 above.

Apparently you can "obsolete" something (as used under 'Status of this
memo'), so 'obsoleting' would be an alternative, but is almost as horrible
IMHO.

-- 
Alex Bligh
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email