On Mon, Jun 9, 2025, at 12:42 AM, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Jay, > At 01:21 PM 05-06-2025, Jay Daley wrote: >>People may not be aware that while the guidance has been withdrawn, >>the table of examples included in the document has not: >> >> >>https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions#table1 >> >>That table is under a section titled "Plain Language" and is >>explained as "The table below displays how some sentences could be >>edited (or not) to incorporate plain and precise language.". e.g. >>replacing "whitelist" with "allowlist". >> >>This framing of "plain and precise" could be considered clearer and >>less contentious (and therefore more likely to be adopted by >>authors) than the framing of "inclusive". > > A national standard fulfills the needs of a country. A non-national > standard has a wider scope. An organization seeking to devise > non-national standards usually brings together people affiliated with > businesses from different countries. This is where the organization > has to tackle problems such as language. The organization which was > known as "IETF" used the English language for historical reasons. It > attracted authors from different countries over the years. Some of > the people reading their works might not speak English in their every > day life. That does not necessarily mean that they do not know how > to read or write in English. This probably falls out of scope for IESG. It may be helpful to have a focused IAB program on where the IETF should be going as a lean, effective and efficient international standards organization. > > According to NIST PR 1502.01, "The withdrawn publication and cover > page will remain at the same DOI, unless it is determined that the > publication should be removed from distribution." The document which > you cited could be removed from distribution or amended if the > publisher wishes to do that. > > As for what is "plain and precise", that is influenced by the needs > of the organization, e.g. the organization aims to fulfill the needs > of a country. From what I understand, the issue here is about what > are the appropriate words to use in an IETF RFC. It is awkward to > tell someone who has been writing in English for several years how to > write in English. It can also cause some debate, e.g. please see the > thread at > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/iUbkutdNpXYgua8kejbsa63ZMv This link is broken. > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy
