From nobody Wed May 5 05:21:04 2021 Return-Path: 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 86BF53A1593 for ; Wed, 5 May 2021 05:21:02 -0700 (PDT) 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=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=fastmailteam.com header.b=WXm8e24J; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=Sl6tMS78 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 IN0DlhUJ8PrT for ; Wed, 5 May 2021 05:20:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C39733A1597 for ; Wed, 5 May 2021 05:20:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7C36169A for ; Wed, 5 May 2021 08:20:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap42 ([10.202.2.92]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 05 May 2021 08:20:56 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= fastmailteam.com; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to :references:date:from:to:subject:content-type; s=fm2; bh=eDS58MB P9nsmFgZ7zD/qHoTuVUXCgPhya7jpJdoJ+NE=; b=WXm8e24JWWHuvumuFzt1Qoy a9aC4V4cKRUR+UonIOyDU/B00ISDvdghsLXdoL7uZg7C2SafSUxtuI2FOZCGVjL6 VLlY1S+Ge/1JdbnAnsm0lLt+tpkZTshQkNLQIVdhqHXCAqpB3yHhgv/4AkerSTPV 4scFyFr6PnM2Kh/Vu1T09TtfJ9eejp1ejmTgV30ZYdVHALFU7TmKDRqjXj7huwAS C+oPGhHj1hzz8OZ7b4vkLiVDQ/B1tsJm2SWO/dzo4E3D/hbgN/MTCV57xBpQ+oGR uGKXdRidvEm30rcvwvJdMpmnq3g78yBYuGMnPZysIPa3rFiJxwAHH38PrwI4Raw= = DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=eDS58M BP9nsmFgZ7zD/qHoTuVUXCgPhya7jpJdoJ+NE=; b=Sl6tMS78wM3gF9nhdCuzaY aFa9DwM7wqFInPq2WYDoTPNjCkPaEZtRZfL29blE+YrHCuTkr02TdI7r/JrIo4Ff VOOB7oyhsL2HJB4zZxfaAkk3tlc+HUakrW7pfOmUAsvvKUqdtkagDgoT7CbmRaiX Lz0QCNwf5yaWqtxQYkKNXuccOQXVjQq1hANCbXrRnTsFWcMehxU3ZILDWw7Js1bT D6DRLZg52ztbmh2pLKwSXCZJcMGnnUyXJqWvtpK/68EGInERKIBGOCKGf89jyYk7 8gnglA6VKntd7+21iTBwaFs81FtyU8u2jb3+wwnPawKu/is6mu4F75DKwPrqD4IQ == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvdefkedggeejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsegrtd erreerredtnecuhfhrohhmpedfuehrohhnucfiohhnugifrghnrgdfuceosghrohhnghes fhgrshhtmhgrihhlthgvrghmrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeffveefiefgje evteehheelgeetleetveeguedthfehgffhtdejhfdvhefhtdekgfenucffohhmrghinhep ihgvthhfrdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilh hfrhhomhepsghrohhnghesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlthgvrghmrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id D3BC5310005F; Wed, 5 May 2021 08:20:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-668-g38f328ee65-fm-ubox-20210430.001-g38f328ee Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <359c3d5a-35d6-dd4a-34d7-ee24adeecfaf@network-heretics.com> References: <0D099A46-15A9-4427-A587-262897D9A722@eggert.org> <657CD388-90BD-4679-9C3F-622D2F726664@bluepopcorn.net> <89adfc3f-4ee5-2697-08c7-1cf699e76ff6@gmail.com> <301B1F32-8812-4963-B8A3-D8D78EBC7109@akamai.com> <8fbe29f6-df69-4c13-8dc8-d39caebef0b5@dogfood.fastmail.com> <359c3d5a-35d6-dd4a-34d7-ee24adeecfaf@network-heretics.com> Date: Wed, 05 May 2021 22:20:34 +1000 From: "Bron Gondwana" To: terminology@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=26aaa7521f8b4c65b8ac0200a07aa816 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Terminology] Discontinuing existing terminology drafts X-BeenThere: terminology@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 May 2021 12:21:03 -0000 --26aaa7521f8b4c65b8ac0200a07aa816 Content-Type: text/plain If they don't agree with the NIST document then that would be reasonable for sure. If they do then it's reasonable but I suggest they should address the work that's happened in the rest of the ietf and express their disagreement rather than publish as if it wasn't happening. On Wed, May 5, 2021, at 22:18, Keith Moore wrote: > On 5/5/21 7:54 AM, Bron Gondwana wrote: >> I suggest that Keith likewise not continue to update his draft (which has also expired), and that Mallory and Neils withdraw their draft from the independent stream where it is currently in ISE review https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-knodel-terminology/history/ >> >> Publishing competing documents with RFC numbers is more likely to muddy this effort than improve it. > I concur. > However, I feel compelled to point out that one reason that the ISE exists is to serve as a medium for dissenting voices. If there's still controversy, the most honest public representation of that controversy might well be to have "competing" RFCs. And that might be a better result than either suppression of any voices, or having only one RFC that only represents one side of that controversy. > Keith > > -- > Terminology mailing list > Terminology@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/terminology > -- Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd brong@fastmailteam.com --26aaa7521f8b4c65b8ac0200a07aa816 Content-Type: text/html
If they don't agree with the NIST document then that would be reasonable for sure. If they do then it's reasonable but I suggest they should address the work that's happened in the rest of the ietf and express their disagreement rather than publish as if it wasn't happening.

On Wed, May 5, 2021, at 22:18, Keith Moore wrote:

On 5/5/21 7:54 AM, Bron Gondwana wrote:

I suggest that Keith likewise not continue to update his draft (which has also expired), and that Mallory and Neils withdraw their draft from the independent stream where it is currently in ISE review https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-knodel-terminology/history/

Publishing competing documents with RFC numbers is more likely to muddy this effort than improve it.

I concur.

However, I feel compelled to point out that one reason that the ISE exists is to serve as a medium for dissenting voices.   If there's still controversy, the most honest public representation of that controversy might well be to have "competing" RFCs.   And that might be a better result than either suppression of any voices, or having only one RFC that only represents one side of that controversy.

Keith


-- 
Terminology mailing list


--
  Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
  brong@fastmailteam.com

--26aaa7521f8b4c65b8ac0200a07aa816--