Counter examples

[mallory]

It helps the reader to have a counter-example of where language should not be changed, thus bounding the need for change.  The best example I can think of is "black hole", which I can confirm at least one department at one rather large tech company thought should not be used.  Such an addition seems to me to support [Eglash], in which (from memory, here) he is considering a tradeoff between inappropriate use of language and its very richness.  I previously mentioned to you Čapek's R.U.R. and robots.  This would be another area to explore.

My issue with this is that 1) it's somewhat superfluous, 2) it unnecessarily casts doubt, and 3) there aren't many (any?) examples in the IETF lexicon that present confusion. Someone asked me in London about the use of "traditional," but another someone (who was not a co-author of this draft) overhearing our conversation had an immediate alternate suggestion. Things aren't that ambiguous. So if you don't have super strong feelings about this, I would prefer to keep the draft as lightweight as possible and not include more here.

Probably good to say that(!), and it's a bit of a relief. Ok, so in thinking about this some, what I am mostly looking for is indeed already in Section 3. I won't stand on my head on this point, but I really think you would be missing an opportunity, for one thing, to show up people who want to say that your argument has no bounds when clearly it does.