Re: WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: Lars Eggert <lars@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2021 05:40:01 -0700
Cc: iesg@xxxxxxxx, ietf@xxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <F3FFC378-C5C6-4D07-8843-E0C544DEB57E@eggert.org>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20210401013907.0b3b7fe8@elandnews.com> <F3FFC378-C5C6-4D07-8843-E0C544DEB57E@eggert.org>

Hi Lars,
At 03:02 AM 01-04-2021, Lars Eggert wrote:

I don't see this ambiguity, but I'm happy to change "informationalrecommendations" to "recommendations", if that is clearer?


Yes, thanks.

Regards,

S. Moonesamy

References:
- WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
  - From: S Moonesamy
- Re: WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
  - From: Lars Eggert

Prev by Date: Re: WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
Next by Date: Re: [Last-Call] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common-06
Previous by thread: Re: WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
Next by thread: Re: WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [IETF Annoucements] [IETF] [IP Storage] [Yosemite News] [Linux SCTP] [Linux Newbies] [Mhonarc] [Fedora Users]

Powered by Linux