Re: Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis-19: (with COMMENT)

On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 02:11:40PM -0500, Michael Sweet wrote:
> Steven/Warren,
> 
> I know the RFC 7322 doesn't say anything about using obscure words or idioms,
> but IMHO since the majority of the world does not speak/read English as a
> first language we should probably be writing boring, unambiguous text that
> everyone with a basic understanding of English can read.
> 
> Adding "character" like this won't endear you to those readers, no matter how
> "easy" is it to type "what the f**k does infelicities mean?" into your
> favorite search engine or AI bot...

I'm among those having no idea what this means. And just like for a number
of idioms that appear in texts I read, I don't look them up on a computer,
that would distract my lceture. I just try to imagine what this means in
the context where I find them, thinking that I might understand later,
and in the end the text I've read keeps some blurry parts that I might
not necessarily have fully understood and that I hope are not very
important.

> I guess in the end it just depends on what your goals are in publishing this
> RFC...

In my opinion, we should always keep in mind that protocol specifications
should still be easy to understand 100 years from now. Language evolves a
little bit in 100 years (grammar can slightly vary for example) but what
you read remains consistent. Rarely used words can disappear, which is not
necessarily a problem if they're not important to grasp the general idea.
But if they're used to mean either something positive/good or something
negative/bad, it can confuse the reader into thinking that something is
expected vs unexecpted. Same for idioms or temporal references to
expressions coming from movies or TV shows, they're impossible to
understand by non-local readers and by future readers.

Just my two cents,
Willy

Received on Saturday, 15 November 2025 07:42:28 UTC