Re: [Terminology] Do you intend to use draft-knodel-terminology as if it is the opinion of the IETF?

[Jim Fenton <[e-mail]>]

Bron,

I generally share your concerns, but wouldn’t be asking the question 
“…and make claims that it is more than your personal opinions” 
because it assumes that the authors might be acting in bad faith. I do 
have concerns about the publication of this document as an RFC (and I 
owe the ISE a message on that), but most of my concerns extend well 
beyond this particular document.

There is considerable potential for this document to be viewed as an 
IETF statement. I learned of this document’s existence through a 
reference in an earlier revision of the *NIST Technical Series 
Publications Author Instructions* to an early revision of 
draft-knodel-terminology citing it as “IETF”. This has now been 
replaced with a reference to https://github.com/ietf/terminology (which 
I also have questions about with respect to IETF consensus), but it 
shows how documents of this sort can be misconstrued as coming from 
IETF. The potential for this is amplified by giving the document an RFC 
number.

-Jim
Disclaimer: I am a consultant for NIST, but these opinions are mine and 
and not a statement from NIST.

On 14 Nov 2021, at 15:57, Bron Gondwana wrote:

> Just following up on this now that the IETF week is over.  While I'm 
> aware that I can't compel you to answer this question - I think it is 
> an important question to ask, and it's an important question to have 
> an honest and forthright answer to.  So I am asking you both directly 
> to answer it.
>
> This question does go directly to the point of the independent series 
> of RFCs.  As a place to keep the history of the IETF, of ideas 
> considered and not ultimately selected by IETF consensus - and as a 
> place for humourous digs at the absurd edges of the space we work in 
> (the April 1st series) it's very valuable.
>
> Documenting the work that went into draft-knodel-terminology as an 
> independent submission as a historical not of a point in time may have 
> some value - though I would argue in that case that what we should be 
> documenting instead is all three of the submissions that were made 
> (mine and Keith's as well) in a single "here's what was considered" 
> informational RFC for future historians to mull over.
>
> But to many outside the IETF, the difference between "Independent 
> Submission" and "Cast In Stone Internet Standard[tm]" is not at all 
> obvious, and the mere fact of having a RFC number lends gravitas to 
> the topic covered.  So publishing this one set of opinions as "an 
> RFC", and referencing said RFC to buttress debate outside the IETF, 
> would be a disingenuous and dishonest representation of the IETF's 
> name and reputation.
>
> Hence my question.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Bron.
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 7, 2021, at 18:16, Bron Gondwana wrote:
>> Hi Mallory and Niels,
>>
>> I made what could probably be construed as "an insinuation" in a 
>> recent comment to this list, so I figure it's only polite to directly 
>> address the direct question to you:
>>
>> If `draft-knodel-terminology` is published as an independent-stream 
>> RFC, do you intend to reference that document in contexts outside the 
>> IETF, and make claims that it is more than your own personal 
>> opinions?
>>
>> I would appreciate an answer on this direct question from each of 
>> you, in this public forum, where it is archived and can be referenced 
>> in future.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bron.
>>
>> --
>>   Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
>>   [e-mail]
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Terminology mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/terminology
>>
>
> --
>   Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
>   [e-mail]

> -- 
> Terminology mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/terminology