Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> a RFC-2119 type RFC to define mathematical terms ?
Maybe more like some glossaries (Internet, security,
I18N, ...), informational RFCs. But I think that's
unnecessary. There are online math. dictionaries,
authors can provide references for unlear terms, or
say what they mean.
> Otherwise this thread is unlikely to do much to
> change the situation.
It highlights why "clear" terms in RFC are good,
defined by reference or inline. In some groups
saying 'header' instead of 'header field', 'byte'
instead of 'octet', or 'charset' instead of IIRC
'encoded character repertoire' is enough to start
a thread. And 'monotonic increasing' instead of
'strictly (monotonic) increasing' is apparently a
similar issue.
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf