On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:02:08AM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > ???All that the considerations sections do is to break out material that has > to be called out to the attention of different groups so that they don't > have to read the entire draft every time. > > As the IETF becomes more process driven and the processes make more sense, > this is expected and an improvement.??? Gee! I would have never guessed that that as the intention of considerations. To be more inclusive of non-native english speakers, i demand this terminology is changed to more readily understood terms used by everyday people, for example those in speechees, emails or twitter to address the target audience! I mean, who starts an email with "Madam/Sir considerations", "IRS considerations" or "congregation considerations" ? How about: "To whom it may concern" for the main part of the document where you really don't care who reads it, Especially all that boring normative stuff everybody wants to ignore. "Dear security experts" For the most important part of any RFC "#IANA", "#IPV6", "#TSV" Why even have sections if we can make RFCs operate like twitter ? And AFAIK, we already use some tagging ([RFC-Editor: ...]!). "Fellow privacy activist, policy makers" Obviously the term to emphasize your fraternization with communities you want to suck up to. "ATTN: coders, product managers, buyers" We always forget about these because they do not have their own card carrying group recognition in the IETF, although coders are kinda getting there via hackathons. Maybe rather use twitter #HACK to highlight important implementation aspects that MUST be messed up to support followup IETF work. Well, those are my considerations. To whom it may concern. Toerless