IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Terminology] Recent posts to the terminology mailing list

Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com> Mon, 08 November 2021 10:17 UTC

Return-Path: <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.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 CD2713A0791 for <terminology@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 02:17:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=open-xchange.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 bTLK0X7McPbc for <terminology@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 02:17:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.open-xchange.com (mx4.open-xchange.com [87.191.57.184]) (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 350963A0637 for <terminology@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 02:17:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imap.open-xchange.com (imap.open-xchange.com [10.20.28.82]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx4.open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EB8976A0CA; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 11:17:19 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=open-xchange.com; s=201705; t=1636366640; bh=kqDaAO06WfBr/F09X2dnvjT/eYN7UTzfD8flG59Xqzs=; h=Date:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=jIa7GlXX/XnK3AkbgaB8WIuOPqFLXi7k7SXV3Fqw/uzbneL5YTqT8FAiXPCzB3WQz 0qc0UbZGqjTtci8sxt4vCSSLUvVXYMf2w6Co8YEjC/lTxFmMYWtVA/MeurC1iuDqWK YplKW3ugvy3zRQz24PMm2sfYtU/g++C1P2SPArhsHTU97CIFSYNgCoT+zWqVp/YQYA T8cOlaxxr/e/U1XafcQ33ShvJXNIzgZyE7exdD8Dk9J2+pXRWtLeyWcoQudvknJYq9 THKE7W3jYv8jWl8s7jfrWJoqTws7BcV9EnFFPr7UgcTP4j32EZqIehZCDLghIg6oYu UtP2jhlky5XZg==
Received: from appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com ([10.20.28.82]) by imap.open-xchange.com with ESMTPSA id CI+KOS/5iGFfMgAA3c6Kzw (envelope-from <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>); Mon, 08 Nov 2021 11:17:19 +0100
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2021 11:17:19 +0100
From: Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>
To: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>, terminology@ietf.org
Message-ID: <101964888.5399.1636366639888@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com>
In-Reply-To: <97010687-1efa-470d-aab3-a2209c644e7f@dogfood.fastmail.com>
References: <BY5PR11MB419686515616F100D00EA0AFB58D9@BY5PR11MB4196.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAFfrZstPj8ZmQNrv5AG_u3soHsu0t=rKzc8OisFwpWtgz3GAhw@mail.gmail.com> <c4f4eebd-aa65-706d-e895-65e0a8034e2b@lounge.org> <97010687-1efa-470d-aab3-a2209c644e7f@dogfood.fastmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_5397_899876756.1636366639871"
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.5-Rev23
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
Autocrypt: addr=vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQENBFhFR+UBCACfoywFKBRfzasiiR9/6dwY36eLePXcdScumDMR8qoXvRS55QYDjp5bs+yMq41qWV9 xp/cqryY9jnvHbeF3TsE5yEazpD1dleRbkpElUBpPwXqkrSP8uXO9KkS9KoX6gdml6M4L+F82WpqYC1 uTzOE6HPmhmQ4cGSgoia2jolxAhRpzoYN99/BwpvoZeTSLP5K6yPlMPYkMev/uZlAkMMhelli9IN6yA yxcC0AeHSnOAcNKUr13yXyMlTyi1cdMJ4sk88zIbefxwg3PAtYjkz3wgvP96cNVwAgSt4+j/ZuVaENP pgVuM512m051j9SlspWDHtzrci5pBKKFsibnTelrABEBAAG0NUJlcnRvbGEsIFZpdHRvcmlvIDx2aXR 0b3Jpby5iZXJ0b2xhQG9wZW4teGNoYW5nZS5jb20+iQFABBMBAgAqBAsJCAcGFQoJCAsCBRYCAwEAAp 4BAhsDBYkSzAMABQMAAAAABYJYRUflAAoJEIU2cHmzj8qNaG0H/ROY+suCP86hoN+9RIV66Ej8b3sb8 UgwFJOJMupZfeb9yTIJwE4VQT5lTt146CcJJ5jvxD6FZn1Htw9y4/45pPAF7xLE066jg3OqRvzeWRZ3 IDUfJJIiM5YGk1xWxDqppSwhnKcMOuI72iioWxX0nGQrWxpnWJsjt08IEEwuYucDkul1PHsrLJbTd58 fiMKLVwag+IE1SPHOwkPF6arZQZIfB5ThtOZV+36Jn8Hok9XfeXWBVyPkiWCQYVX39QsIbr0JNR9kQy 4g2ZFexOcTe8Jo12jPRL7V8OqStdDes3cje9lWFLnX05nrfLuE0l0JKWEg8akN+McFXc+oV68h7nu5A Q0EWEVH5QEIAIDKanNBe1uRfk8AjLirflZO291VNkOAeUu+dIhecGnZeQW6htlDinlYOnXhtsY1mK9W PUu+xshDq7lXn2G0LxldYwyJYZaJtDgIKqVqwxfA34Lj27oqPuXwcvGhdCgt0SW/YcalRdAi0/AzUCu 5GSaj2kaGUSnBYYUP4szGJXjaK2psP5toQSCtx2pfSXQ6MaqPK9Zzy+D5xc6VWQRp/iRImodAcPf8fg JJvRyJ8Jla3lKWyvBBzJDg6MOf6Fts78bJSt23X0uPp93g7GgbYkuRMnFI4RGoTVkxjD/HBEJ0CNg22 hoHJondhmKnZVrHEluFuSnW0wBEIYomcPSPB+cAEQEAAYkBMQQYAQIAGwUCWEVH5QIbDAQLCQgHBhUK CQgLAgUJEswDAAAKCRCFNnB5s4/KjdO8B/wNpvWtOpLdotR/Xh4fu08Fd63nnNfbIGIETWsVi0Sbr8i E5duuGaaWIcMmUvgKe/BM0Fpj9X01Zjm90uoPrlVVuQWrf+vFlbalUYVZr51gl5UyUFHk+iAZCAA0WB rsmACKvuV1P7GuiX3UV9b59T9taYJxN3dNFuftrEuvsqHimFtlekUjUwoCekTJdncFusBhwz2OrKhHr WWrEsXkfh0+pURWYAlKlTxvXuI7gAfHEQM+6OnrWvXYtlhd0M1sBPnCjbyG63Qws7Rek9bEWKtH6dA6 dmT2FQT+g1S9Mdf0WkPTQNX0x24dm8IoHuD3KYwX7Svx43Xa17aZnXqUjtj1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/terminology/baJ0kWl70KB8lP8LksauGi19B7c>
Subject: Re: [Terminology] Recent posts to the terminology mailing list
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: Mon, 08 Nov 2021 10:17:31 -0000

> Il 07/11/2021 07:01 Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com> ha scritto:
> 
> There's a way to address issues with draft-knodel-terminology - personally I sent my review directly to the ISE since he's the one tasked with the unfortunate and thankless job of working out whether it's appropriate for publication.
> 
Just for the record, I also sent my review of the draft to the ISE a couple of months ago, which suggested - as a minimum - to remove the judgemental parts, which IMHO are inappropriate. Independent RFCs should be about publishing non-standard technical practices that it is still useful to document, not the non-technical views of some IETF participants, and definitely not their personal judgement of other IETF participants.

On the other hand, if we were to do anything useful with this list, I would be happy to contribute to a draft whose aim - given that consensus is clearly impossible - were to document the different views on the subject in different communities and parts of the world, to the advantage of engineers that may be confronted with similar issues. But I think we already decided that it was better to close this debate with the NIST reference and do something else.

--

Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com mailto:vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email