IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Fri, 23 April 2021 16:29 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: terminology@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: terminology@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B70D33A157B; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:29:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -11.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NONE=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 dvnEBB_ih4fY; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:29:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 885103A1579; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:29:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4560; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1619195393; x=1620404993; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=Gz6a3B/cclbOX5odkgrOsyX6wXwCqorp3+24kh5WYDU=; b=i8J8ogflPyCq5JGbb6Ycv0lBjDPspmW0F0mDSzO0e15VvaTvnwFnC/ln ULpFuiRLXrcaWdSDlrFLtrTAWQhMLTXhbpJyXEsbspucmLIroIcj+bT8T wG1DzaP1zAbPqbx9F7vwAQqEjF14pZB9pXso+zphez4sxCIfiIxSoK3La c=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 488
X-IPAS-Result: A0AhAAA69YJglxbLJq1aHAEBAQEBAQcBARIBAQQEAQGCAAUBAQsBgSKCVQEnEjGEQ4kEiG2HfoxOhiSBfAQHAQEBCgMBATQEAQGEUAKBeiY2Bw4CAwEBAQMCAwEBAQEBBQEBAQIBBgQUAQEBAQEBAQFohV2GRAEBAQMBI0gOBQsLBBQqAgJXGRSCXQGCZiGnQXqBMoEBhFiEchCBOgGBUoUvAYZUQ4ILgTocgl8+hQ+CSjaCCSIEgVWBVgMDGIJKnkudEIMYg0GBRpgUBCGUQJBQtG4BhAUCBAYFAhaBWwongVszGggbFWUBgj4+EhkOjjiONj8DLzgCBgEJAQEDCY0QAQE
IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:UWbTu6vH9M5mDFOoI+vK2Akr7skD9NV00zAX/kB9WHVpW+aT/v re/8gz/xnylToXRTUcicmNUZPtfVrw/YN4iLNxAZ6MRw/j0VHDEKhD6s/YzyTkC2nC8IdmtZ tIV6RlEtX/ARxbgK/BjTWQN9YlzJ25/LuzheHYpk0DcShQZ6tt7xh0B2+geyUceCB8CZU0D5 aa7MZczgDQHEg/VNixBXUOQoH4yeHjqZSOW29lOzcXrC2HjTal89fBYnyl9yZbdS9TyrE/9m WAtAr16syYwpeG4y6Z8XPP5JJLn9ak8P9/PYinj8gYLSiEsHfOWLhc
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,246,1613433600"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="35299861"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 23 Apr 2021 16:29:49 +0000
Received: from [10.61.144.111] ([10.61.144.111]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 13NGTm4S032596 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 23 Apr 2021 16:29:48 GMT
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <042C245A-0BCA-4BC5-8F28-E2F5B81E5087@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_354AEB17-DC1A-4B6A-B682-E8BC98607BB0"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:29:47 +0200
In-Reply-To: <2563B42A-20A4-4A9F-B9CA-518A72A0A095@eggert.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
To: terminology@ietf.org
References: <161918836800.7390.6996403788262551415@ietfa.amsl.com> <2563B42A-20A4-4A9F-B9CA-518A72A0A095@eggert.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.144.111, [10.61.144.111]
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/terminology/P6wG3KuNjVPzorrwZdg0pnX4O1Q>
Subject: Re: [Terminology] WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
X-BeenThere: terminology@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents <terminology.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/terminology>, <mailto:terminology-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/terminology/>
List-Post: <mailto:terminology@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:terminology-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/terminology>, <mailto:terminology-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 16:29:59 -0000

Lars,

I’m very sorry to bring you back to a particular point.

> On 23 Apr 2021, at 16:43, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> wrote:
> 
>>  The RFC will express general
>> principles for assessing when language is effective. The principles should be
>> derived considering input from a broad set of IETF participants.

That’s not really something our community is expert in doing, and we should not pretend that we are.  We are engineers; not linguistic anthropologists, ethicists, philosophers, or neurolinguists.  The best I can come up with to address this is:

> The RFC will leverage generally acceptable principles for assessing when language is effective.

But I don’t know if they exist.

Personally I thought Bron’s draft hit the right tone on this, and any charter text that is similarly scoped would be ok.

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email