Subject: [Terminology] Martin Vigoureux's Yes on charter-ietf-term-00-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Martin Vigoureux via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 02:12:46 -0700

Martin Vigoureux has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-term-00-07: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-term/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I acknowledge the risks associated with this initiative (as outlined by other
ADs) but I think that on the long run this will engender more benefits than
problems. Yet, I think something important is missing. The output of the WG, if
it goes all the way through the IETF Stream, will have IETF-wide consensus.
While it is impossible to anticipate on the actual terminology recommandations
the WG will make, I believe the charter should take a position (or lead the WG
to make a recommandation) on how to handle initiatives aiming at
revising/updating/obsoleting IETF past publications with the purpose of
changing terms they contain.