Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> Thu, 20 September 2018 11:51 UTC
Return-Path: <dave@cridland.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBF0B130E92 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 04:51:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cridland.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id upGVRJe4xteD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 04:51:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22a.google.com (mail-lj1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E06F1130E85 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 04:51:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id 203-v6so8077932ljj.13 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 04:51:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cridland.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=7DKcu7CviSHyN2iegsb01Uz12Gvwd/+xz5+hadWbkWc=; b=bAkeEfUamrkZYaTfcpJZEEJE6X8uSQ8aa2h8VUImlFyTJ/IDw+bcrul9vspY7UqGv1 dVsT36anCB6Cq18eqVObHYwaoG72D+dEHto3I+r0HhTPtIWk2WjJgQh56To6aWjAr3DP QKdPSRjCBxjK5NKl91N75YEOu+CnnkuYq2lgg=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7DKcu7CviSHyN2iegsb01Uz12Gvwd/+xz5+hadWbkWc=; b=TddRLCV1qTJzRwq5jZOOMSO5SNGlAK9Qbpp2R/fN3R+3KO6uN+H/EHs40kJG1BCMhd KOqXcC1P3LP3Hp3Mfi/Xg3cjkaSsN8aSUn7lIv+oBGC9g9kJ2Ffaf8wyJ9GY13GRV5/g huU/LAEdkKNpeZTBY0ERfnrH5Bbig2jtY1lLOlKC4Vo+TKGnTf/rzD8y+vOV9j3/nGFp nkoB3bES3OhPWVYxO87taIakD217QAPWnlyLQ0E7I+jvt0QpgRo6nSRhtHBC7ryWPkMX TcP6AYahRrmsDQAlIztIAsFcktr18Ver3Pbg0g34TXtOfxb6X0Pb2toouTngO0breOi1 LLtQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51DeFpjjBJgJkRvOl4HAfCHYhIpAiy9pATJtcdpn0RGpzuYfDc5i SC1bLtB+KvGV+MSPsYBlyTGqaYtqieGrWXWJPGfRbGZTFdw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdavnT98eLTxEyu5sssSULlMBAlFyPwcdVgwM/QqdD1qbLoW6iOPvdAZikiMoF+gm/Yq9GLhuXF1sjI/cY79NIM=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:5201:: with SMTP id g1-v6mr24905559ljb.144.1537444289723; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 04:51:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cafa1282-ae6a-93de-ea4a-d100af28d8b8@digitaldissidents.org>
In-Reply-To: <cafa1282-ae6a-93de-ea4a-d100af28d8b8@digitaldissidents.org>
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 12:51:18 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKHUCzxL8xgn2D2W9G=Qk=AXzyw4mmcqPii6GKBSiByRyxbq+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
To: lists@digitaldissidents.org
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c052f505764c24bd"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-ltosm7kUJewCMK_Qppic0NYA80>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 11:51:35 -0000
Back when I was even more clueless than I am today, and actually ran DNS servers, we used the terms "primary" and "secondary" as a matter of course. Secondaries copied the data from primaries. So far, so good. Then we added a third nameserver, and of course that must be the tertiary, used only when *both* the primary and secondary had failed. When I realised my stupidity, I avoided the terms "primary" and "secondary" in the workplace, and instead used the terms "master" and "slave", which were less easily confused - or rather, made me less easily confused by them. The fact that "master/slave" was well understood within engineering helped enormously. But it's possible to remove the word "slave" easily - indeed, when discussing distributed systems such as clustering, the literature tends to refer to a "master", but not so much to "slaves". "Blacklist" and "whitelist" are well-known terms, but they can be avoided with small effort to provide synonyms which are more easily understood - "Blocklist" and "Permitlist" are trivial examples here. But if someone says "There is a whitelist", then I also know the default is to deny. So we'll need to be a bit more explicit about the default state, perhaps. In other words, I worry about changing these terms, but the possibility for confusion is low if we do. "Man-in-the-middle" I'm clearly too stupid to understand why this might be offensive, but equally I have no idea what term of art would suffice instead. I have no objection to thinking twice before using a term that could offend, but I have huge objections to replacing existing terms with new ones that could confuse instead. But still, I'm a white male living in a country that hasn't had slaves within its own borders, at least, for over a thousand years, so I freely admit I may not understand the gravity of the situation. So I'd like to hear from actual people who are actually made to feel uncomfortable about these terms, rather than people saying that other people have heard of some people who might be offended. Dave. On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 at 10:26, Niels ten Oever <lists@digitaldissidents.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > On the hrpc-list [0] there has been an intense conversation which was > spurred by the news that the Python community removed Master/Slave > terminology from its programming language [1]. > > In the discussion that followed it was remarked that in RFCs terms like > Master/Slave, blacklist/whitelist, man-in-middle, and other terminology > that is offensive to some people and groups is quite common. > > This is not a discussion that can be resolved in hrpc, but rather should > be dealt with in the IETF community (because hrpc doesn't make policy > for terminology in the IETF), which is why I am posting this here. > > If people find the discussion worthwhile, we might also be just in time > to request a BoF on this topic. > > Looking forward to discuss. > > Best, > > Niels > > > [0] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hrpc/ > [1] > > https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8x7akv/masterslave-terminology-was-removed-from-python-programming-language > > > -- > Niels ten Oever > Researcher and PhD Candidate > Datactive Research Group > University of Amsterdam > > PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 > 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 > >
- Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Niels ten Oever
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Riccardo Bernardini
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Stewart Bryant
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Petr Špaček
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Niels ten Oever
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Dave Cridland
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Loa Andersson
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mukund Sivaraman
- SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Anne-Marie Eklund-Löwinder
- RE: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Roberta Maglione (robmgl)
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Ole Troan
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Michal Krsek
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Tony Finch
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Job Snijders
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Anton Ivanov
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Anton Ivanov
- RE: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Adrian Farrel
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… Jaap Akkerhuis
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs lloyd.wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Carsten Bormann
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… lloyd.wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Paul Wouters
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Paul Wouters
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs lloyd.wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Stephan Wenger
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Nottingham
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Stephen Farrell
- RE: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs John E Drake
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Melinda Shore
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Dick Franks
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs ned+ietf
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Melinda Shore
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Melinda Shore
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Paul Hoffman
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… Evan Hunt
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- ""Man-in-the-middle""? <was, Re: SV: Diversity an… Charlie Perkins
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Evan Hunt
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Melinda Shore
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Evan Hunt
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… Michael StJohns
- Re: ""Man-in-the-middle""? <was, Re: SV: Diversit… Dave Aronson
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… Heather Flanagan
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Nottingham
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Heather Flanagan
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Evan Hunt
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Carsten Bormann
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Ted Lemon
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Evan Hunt
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Carsten Bormann
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs John C Klensin
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Carsten Bormann
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RF… Anton Ivanov
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Yoav Nir
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Kyle Rose
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Carsten Bormann
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Dave Cridland
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Ted Lemon
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… John Levine
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Ted Lemon
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Rousell
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Mark Rousell
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Melinda Shore
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Alia Atlas
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Allison Mankin
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Rousell
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Rousell
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Mark Rousell
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Lloyd Wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Lloyd Wood
- On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and offensi… Jari Arkko
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Eliot Lear
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Niels ten Oever
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Lloyd Wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Eliot Lear
- Re: On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and off… Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Alissa Cooper
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Paul Wouters
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Ted Lemon
- Re: On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and off… Donald Eastlake
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Lloyd Wood
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Niels ten Oever
- Re: On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and off… Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Ted Lemon
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Anton Ivanov
- Re: On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and off… Ted Lemon
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… John R Levine
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Paul Wouters
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Eliot Lear
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Toerless Eckert
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Nico Williams
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Avri
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Dave Cridland
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… John Levine
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Allison Mankin
- Tell me if I should send this Re: why exactly is … Mallory Knodel
- Mallory-in-the-middle attacks (Re: SV: Diversity … Nico Williams
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Nico Williams
- Re: On-path attackers (Was: Re: Diversity and off… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Glenn Deen
- Re: Mallory-in-the-middle attacks (Re: SV: Divers… Nico Williams
- Re: Tell me if I should send this Re: why exactly… lloyd.wood
- Re: Mallory-in-the-middle attacks (Re: SV: Divers… Mallory Knodel
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Mallory Knodel
- Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… S Moonesamy
- Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and of… Mallory Knodel