IETF Logo Mail Archive

[rfc-i] document conventions around Capitalization of Terminology

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 13 April 2021 15:33 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4FF43A1B65; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:33:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.651
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 oA5eBhqjWedN; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:33:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 368233A1B75; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:33:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EBF1F407AD; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70631F407AD for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:33:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hKNSQ_ihz08o for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76D23F407A8 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86DCE38FE9; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 11:40:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id kLY-95DtPsNb; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 11:40:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AF7F38FE8; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 11:40:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id F20AC34A; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 11:33:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: rats@ietf.org, rfc-interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
X-Attribution: mcr
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 11:33:10 -0400
Message-ID: <10996.1618327990@localhost>
Subject: [rfc-i] document conventions around Capitalization of Terminology
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5474762036475672181=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

In the RATS Architecture document we have spent some time (maybe too much
time), making sure that if we define some Term, that it is consistently
rendered like a Proper Noun. That is capitalized.
There are some terms which have renderings in both capitalized (our
definition), and uncapitalized (not exactly our definition).

In a document of mine (BRSKI) which has now entered AUTH48, the RPC has
lower-cased all our in-document defined terminology.  I was very surprised by this.
I have asked to have that reversed, and I imagine that my wish will be granted.

But, I am wondering about convention, and I wonder if there is some magic
keyphrase that needs to go into a Terminology Section such to indicate that
to the editors and the readers that we are following that convention.
Or if we should make up such a phrase.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide





_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email