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

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jim,
At 03:11 PM 17-11-2021, Jim Fenton wrote:
>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.

Thanks for raising the above issue.  I don't think that it is a good 
idea to apply a different "rule" for the github.com repository.  The 
repository does not represent consensus.  It can also be misconstrued 
as the IETF's position on the question of terminology.

There is the following sentence in the Abstract of -07: "This 
document represents the opinion of the authors and does not have IETF 
consensus."  It is unusual to see an author including such a 
statement in his/her draft.

Several IETF participants supported the draft, if my reading is 
correct.  It is not clear whether those participants reviewed the 
draft as there isn't any acknowledgement in the draft.

Now, I understand why you asked whether the reviews would be publicly 
accessible.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy