[Terminology] Comments on draft-knodel-terminology
"RFC ISE (Adrian Farrel)" <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 27 August 2021 09:20 UTC
Return-Path: <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>
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 2EF5A3A27C4 for <terminology@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 02:20:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 sIZLpB5JGPL8 for <terminology@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 02:20:03 -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 200533A27C1 for <terminology@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 02:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F588F40709 for <terminology@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 02:19:44 -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 cNMW7q3g9RxB; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 02:19:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www.rfc-editor.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE748F406F2; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 02:19:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 195.166.134.103 (SquirrelMail authenticated user rfcpise) by www.rfc-editor.org with HTTP; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 02:19:39 -0700
Message-ID: <49a0a054cdcfe153ed05a7e04a6e0858.squirrel@www.rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 02:19:39 -0700
From: "RFC ISE (Adrian Farrel)" <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>
To: terminology@ietf.org
Cc: Adrian Farrel <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>
Reply-To: rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/terminology/l4vjg55V6lgxB-Yn_IuPGnjoe9s>
Subject: [Terminology] Comments on draft-knodel-terminology
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, 27 Aug 2021 09:20:09 -0000
All, I've been made aware of the discussion of this document on this mailing list. I am not subscribed to this list (except for the time it takes to send this email). Lloyd is correct that the document has been presented to the Independent Stream Editor requesting publication as an Informational RFC in the Independent Submission Stream. I am currently in the process of working with the authors to see whether we can edit the text to arrive at a form that consider suitable for publication. This is a work in progress, and I have recently sent the -06 version out for review by a number of experts in various aspects of the material. I am open to receiving other comments and opinions via rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org. Please note that I will not be monitoring this list, so while you are welcome to send your emails anywhere you like, the only ones I will read are those sent to me. If you do send me a review or comments, please note: - I may share your thoughts with attribution with the authors unless you explicitly request me not to. - I am not looking for any form of consensus: this is not a process of IETF agreement or sign-off, but one of reaching a document that I consider ready and appropriate for publication. - The document clearly (in my opinion) states that it is the opinion of the authors and does not purport to be the opinion of the IETF. For more information about the Independent Submissions process, please see https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/independent/ and the referenced RFCs. Best, Adrian -- Adrian Farrel (ISE), rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org
- [Terminology] Comments on draft-knodel-terminology RFC ISE (Adrian Farrel)