Re: Martians
At 2:45 PM -0400 3/12/13, John C Klensin wrote: I've gotten some feedback that some people thought I was identifying them as Martians and were offended. Wow, that is actually pretty funny. Sorry. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only -- Randomly selected tag: --- We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture. --Rev. Ray Mummert, of Dover PA, commenting on a legal challenge to teaching intelligent design in public school science classes
Re: Martians
Subject: Re: Martians Martian is nice expression. Weren't 'unusual' packets called 'Martians' at some early stage of Internet work? It certainly has history in the IETF as a term of art, I think that's it. Noel
Re: Martians
--On Tuesday, 12 March, 2013 16:21 -0400 Marc Blanchet marc.blanc...@viagenie.ca wrote: I was not offended, but I was in strong disagreement with your second comment that by having a co-editor assigned to help, it would make these Martians second-class citizens in the IETF. I completly disagree. Everybody needs help, for improving whatever: technical, writing, QA, etc... That does not make someone a second-class citizen. Marc, I wasn't worried about second class in the way I think you mean it above, but about a few other things: (1) We often don't have a big surplus of people wanting to be document authors/editors and having the needed skills. Having to say you can't work on this document unless we find someone to work with you who will be the _real_ author of the English text is problematic in that it uses up two people, one of whom presumably could have done the work by herself. (2) In something analogous to the many teach a man to fish stories, I'd like to be sure we focus on supporting and improving on whatever skills are there rather than on ghostwriters and making those skills less necessary. We aren't helping people gain the skills and experience they need to assume leadership roles around here nearly quickly enough. We aren't helping people gain the skills and experience they need to be document editors and authors nearly quickly enough either. And, fwiw, those of us who are first-generation wrt Internet technology are starting to get _really_ old. Part of the problem is that we talk about can't easily write good technical English as if it is binary between can and cannot or a sharp line. Many of us need help (as anyone who has read my sentences and typographical errors when I start writing quickly knows), but the kinds of help we need are such that there is not one size fits all solution and never will be. I still think that pairing people as editors is a great idea in many cases, even though I've tried it will only mixed success. But I wouldn't want it to turn into a rule or requirement. best, john
Re: Martians
On 3/13/13 10:24 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: Subject: Re: Martians Martian is nice expression. Weren't 'unusual' packets called 'Martians' at some early stage of Internet work? It certainly has history in the IETF as a term of art, I think that's it. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1812#section-5.3.7 Noel
Re: Martians
On Wed, 13 Mar 2013, Noel Chiappa wrote: Subject: Re: Martians Martian is nice expression. Weren't 'unusual' packets called 'Martians' at some early stage of Internet work? It certainly has history in the IETF as a term of art, I think that's it. Yes, attributed to Dave Mills, I believe, along with a number of other colorful expressions. -- Steve
Re: Martians
On 03/13/13 11:10, Stephen Casner allegedly wrote: On Wed, 13 Mar 2013, Noel Chiappa wrote: Subject: Re: Martians Martian is nice expression. Weren't 'unusual' packets called 'Martians' at some early stage of Internet work? It certainly has history in the IETF as a term of art, I think that's it. Yes, attributed to Dave Mills, I believe, along with a number of other colorful expressions. -- Steve iirc bogons came from Mike Petry and Vogons.
RE: Martians
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Spencer Dawkins At least some of the nerdier nerds were probably thinking how could *I* become a Martian? because that would be so cool! ... [WEG] followed immediately by a complaint thread on this list asking why IAOC hasn't yet found a suitable meeting venue on Mars to encourage better participation in the IETF by Martians. Wes George This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
Re: Martians
- Original Message - From: Stephen Casner cas...@acm.org To: Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu Cc: ietf@ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 3:10 PM On Wed, 13 Mar 2013, Noel Chiappa wrote: Martian is nice expression. Weren't 'unusual' packets called 'Martians' at some early stage of Internet work? It certainly has history in the IETF as a term of art, I think that's it. Yes, attributed to Dave Mills, I believe, along with a number of other colorful expressions. And still in use today, in routing or operations, as in RFC4379, In particular, the default behavior is to treat packets destined to a 127/8 address as martians. Tom Petch -- Steve
Re: Martians
Le 2013-03-12 à 14:45, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com a écrit : Hi At last night's plenary, I raised some related issues about the difficulties posed by the interactions between current systems for developing and editing documents working groups through the approval and publication processes and the growing number of people in the community who do sound technical work but who cannot express themselves easily and well in clear technical English. In one of those comments, I suggested that the issues were likely to continue to get more important as the IETF diversified to including participants from areas we haven't seen before and mentioned likely increased numbers of participants from Mars. My intent was to abstract the problem as much as possible to avoid even the appearance of singling out any one country or region as the source of the issue. I don't believe that is the case and have observed (and did last night) that we have first-language speakers of English who write good and bad technical English as well as many first-language speakers of other languages who write better technical English than the native-speaker average. In any event, I've gotten some feedback that some people thought I was identifying them as Martians and were offended. I was not offended, but I was in strong disagreement with your second comment that by having a co-editor assigned to help, it would make these Martians second-class citizens in the IETF. I completly disagree. Everybody needs help, for improving whatever: technical, writing, QA, etc... That does not make someone a second-class citizen. Closing and moving forward. Marc. No offense was intended and I used the Martian terminology precisely to avoid that possibility. I obviously failed and apologize to anyone who didn't hear or understand what I was trying to say in the way I intended to say it. I'll try to watch my choice of vocabulary even more in the future. john
Re: Martians
I wasn't offended either, but I can see how some people might have felt. Moving on, what I do believe is that many i-d's could benefit from a review by a linguist. This role, IMO, is different from the role of an editor. The linguist doesn't need to have any technical background. He is more like a syntax / semantic verifier. It's common practice in other fields. I know this idea raises a host of issues, like for example that it will probably cost the IETF money, and that it's unfeasible to linguist-check every single i-d. But maybe a reasonable compromise can be found. Like the Gen-ART review, maybe the WG chairs or the Gen-ART reviewers themselves could flag some document for 'Linguist-Review', and have them second checked by an appropriate linguist. Whether the original authors were native English speakers or not would be immaterial, the document would be flagged when an otherwise sound document suffers from language issues that could hinder implementation. Apologies for the unorganized email, the idea took form as I was responding to John's original email. Warm regards, ~Carlos (married to a picky linguist) On 3/12/13 4:21 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote: Le 2013-03-12 à 14:45, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com a écrit : Hi At last night's plenary, I raised some related issues about the difficulties posed by the interactions between current systems for developing and editing documents working groups through the approval and publication processes and the growing number of people in the community who do sound technical work but who cannot express themselves easily and well in clear technical English. In one of those comments, I suggested that the issues were likely to continue to get more important as the IETF diversified to including participants from areas we haven't seen before and mentioned likely increased numbers of participants from Mars. My intent was to abstract the problem as much as possible to avoid even the appearance of singling out any one country or region as the source of the issue. I don't believe that is the case and have observed (and did last night) that we have first-language speakers of English who write good and bad technical English as well as many first-language speakers of other languages who write better technical English than the native-speaker average. In any event, I've gotten some feedback that some people thought I was identifying them as Martians and were offended. I was not offended, but I was in strong disagreement with your second comment that by having a co-editor assigned to help, it would make these Martians second-class citizens in the IETF. I completly disagree. Everybody needs help, for improving whatever: technical, writing, QA, etc... That does not make someone a second-class citizen. Closing and moving forward. Marc. No offense was intended and I used the Martian terminology precisely to avoid that possibility. I obviously failed and apologize to anyone who didn't hear or understand what I was trying to say in the way I intended to say it. I'll try to watch my choice of vocabulary even more in the future. john
Re: Martians
Oh, I forgot: NOW TAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER !! :D On 3/12/13 5:48 PM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote: I wasn't offended either, but I can see how some people might have felt. Moving on, what I do believe is that many i-d's could benefit from a review by a linguist. This role, IMO, is different from the role of an editor. The linguist doesn't need to have any technical background. He is more like a syntax / semantic verifier. It's common practice in other fields. I know this idea raises a host of issues, like for example that it will probably cost the IETF money, and that it's unfeasible to linguist-check every single i-d. But maybe a reasonable compromise can be found. Like the Gen-ART review, maybe the WG chairs or the Gen-ART reviewers themselves could flag some document for 'Linguist-Review', and have them second checked by an appropriate linguist. Whether the original authors were native English speakers or not would be immaterial, the document would be flagged when an otherwise sound document suffers from language issues that could hinder implementation. Apologies for the unorganized email, the idea took form as I was responding to John's original email. Warm regards, ~Carlos (married to a picky linguist) On 3/12/13 4:21 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote: Le 2013-03-12 à 14:45, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com a écrit : Hi At last night's plenary, I raised some related issues about the difficulties posed by the interactions between current systems for developing and editing documents working groups through the approval and publication processes and the growing number of people in the community who do sound technical work but who cannot express themselves easily and well in clear technical English. In one of those comments, I suggested that the issues were likely to continue to get more important as the IETF diversified to including participants from areas we haven't seen before and mentioned likely increased numbers of participants from Mars. My intent was to abstract the problem as much as possible to avoid even the appearance of singling out any one country or region as the source of the issue. I don't believe that is the case and have observed (and did last night) that we have first-language speakers of English who write good and bad technical English as well as many first-language speakers of other languages who write better technical English than the native-speaker average. In any event, I've gotten some feedback that some people thought I was identifying them as Martians and were offended. I was not offended, but I was in strong disagreement with your second comment that by having a co-editor assigned to help, it would make these Martians second-class citizens in the IETF. I completly disagree. Everybody needs help, for improving whatever: technical, writing, QA, etc... That does not make someone a second-class citizen. Closing and moving forward. Marc. No offense was intended and I used the Martian terminology precisely to avoid that possibility. I obviously failed and apologize to anyone who didn't hear or understand what I was trying to say in the way I intended to say it. I'll try to watch my choice of vocabulary even more in the future. john
Re: Martians
I didn't know we had a leader. I though we were an autonomous collective! Seriously though, editing for language is something we could take off the shoulders of technical editors at least part of the time. I'd want for them (and maybe chairs+ADs) to be the ones using such a resource, should it exists, though, and not anyone/everyone (else the cost/benfit probably doesn't make sense). -=R On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Carlos M. Martinez carlosm3...@gmail.comwrote: Oh, I forgot: NOW TAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER !! :D On 3/12/13 5:48 PM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote: I wasn't offended either, but I can see how some people might have felt. Moving on, what I do believe is that many i-d's could benefit from a review by a linguist. This role, IMO, is different from the role of an editor. The linguist doesn't need to have any technical background. He is more like a syntax / semantic verifier. It's common practice in other fields. I know this idea raises a host of issues, like for example that it will probably cost the IETF money, and that it's unfeasible to linguist-check every single i-d. But maybe a reasonable compromise can be found. Like the Gen-ART review, maybe the WG chairs or the Gen-ART reviewers themselves could flag some document for 'Linguist-Review', and have them second checked by an appropriate linguist. Whether the original authors were native English speakers or not would be immaterial, the document would be flagged when an otherwise sound document suffers from language issues that could hinder implementation. Apologies for the unorganized email, the idea took form as I was responding to John's original email. Warm regards, ~Carlos (married to a picky linguist) On 3/12/13 4:21 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote: Le 2013-03-12 à 14:45, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com a écrit : Hi At last night's plenary, I raised some related issues about the difficulties posed by the interactions between current systems for developing and editing documents working groups through the approval and publication processes and the growing number of people in the community who do sound technical work but who cannot express themselves easily and well in clear technical English. In one of those comments, I suggested that the issues were likely to continue to get more important as the IETF diversified to including participants from areas we haven't seen before and mentioned likely increased numbers of participants from Mars. My intent was to abstract the problem as much as possible to avoid even the appearance of singling out any one country or region as the source of the issue. I don't believe that is the case and have observed (and did last night) that we have first-language speakers of English who write good and bad technical English as well as many first-language speakers of other languages who write better technical English than the native-speaker average. In any event, I've gotten some feedback that some people thought I was identifying them as Martians and were offended. I was not offended, but I was in strong disagreement with your second comment that by having a co-editor assigned to help, it would make these Martians second-class citizens in the IETF. I completly disagree. Everybody needs help, for improving whatever: technical, writing, QA, etc... That does not make someone a second-class citizen. Closing and moving forward. Marc. No offense was intended and I used the Martian terminology precisely to avoid that possibility. I obviously failed and apologize to anyone who didn't hear or understand what I was trying to say in the way I intended to say it. I'll try to watch my choice of vocabulary even more in the future. john
Re: Martians
On 3/12/2013 1:45 PM, John C Klensin wrote: In any event, I've gotten some feedback that some people thought I was identifying them as Martians and were offended. No offense was intended and I used the Martian terminology precisely to avoid that possibility. I obviously failed and apologize to anyone who didn't hear or understand what I was trying to say in the way I intended to say it. I'll try to watch my choice of vocabulary even more in the future. At least some of the nerdier nerds were probably thinking how could *I* become a Martian? because that would be so cool! ... But just to your point that this wasn't about native English speakers ... Doesn't Alfred HÎnes still have the indoor record for accepted RFC editorial(*) errata in the history of, like, ever? :) Spencer (*) and non-editorial errata, too, but that's a different story ...
Re: Martians
Hi, Martian” is nice expression. Top level Hungarian physicists working in various aspects of nuclear physics in the early forties in the States were called Martians as they used a funny language amongst themselves, i.e. Hungarian. This group includes John von Neumann, Leo Szilard, Ede Teller and Jeno Wigner... Geza On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 5:08 AM, Spencer Dawkins spen...@wonderhamster.orgwrote: On 3/12/2013 1:45 PM, John C Klensin wrote: In any event, I've gotten some feedback that some people thought I was identifying them as Martians and were offended. No offense was intended and I used the Martian terminology precisely to avoid that possibility. I obviously failed and apologize to anyone who didn't hear or understand what I was trying to say in the way I intended to say it. I'll try to watch my choice of vocabulary even more in the future. At least some of the nerdier nerds were probably thinking how could *I* become a Martian? because that would be so cool! ... But just to your point that this wasn't about native English speakers ... Doesn't Alfred HÎnes still have the indoor record for accepted RFC editorial(*) errata in the history of, like, ever? :) Spencer (*) and non-editorial errata, too, but that's a different story ...
