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

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

To: ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 22:36:49 +0900
In-reply-to: <f52c46cf-03fb-6692-3a87-9b7db639f2e9@gmail.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20210401013907.0b3b7fe8@elandnews.com> <89383942-204e-a94e-3350-42bfb4165ba0@comcast.net> <792c4815-8c36-e5fa-9fbe-2e1cfa97239f@comcast.net> <D18D87D95723A68D8E75B6BC@PSB> <20210406152930.GR3828@localhost> <f52c46cf-03fb-6692-3a87-9b7db639f2e9@gmail.com>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

I believe that the charter is good enough as it is,


Even though, it is obvious that the charter is too bad?

					Masataka Ohta

References:
- WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
  - From: S Moonesamy
- Re: WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
  - From: Michael StJohns
- Re: WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
  - From: Michael StJohns
- Re: WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
  - From: John C Klensin
- Re: WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
  - From: Nico Williams
- Re: WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
  - From: Brian E Carpenter

Prev by Date: Re: A contribution to ongoing terminology work
Next by Date: Re: Fwd: Initial suggestion from the IETF SAA
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