Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs

Job Snijders <job@instituut.net> Thu, 20 September 2018 12:59 UTC

Return-Path: <job@instituut.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 E2B80130DE2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 05:59:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=instituut-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 i1uCPgxwtYeB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 05:59:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x329.google.com (mail-ot1-x329.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::329]) (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 E45F6129C6B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 05:59:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x329.google.com with SMTP id v10-v6so9301684otk.7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 05:59:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=instituut-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=eWbrf6IHFMGn1zm15wR0lDcFNf3aTTbBizU5D4RznGI=; b=Mopis7ajDwCfibraZksxSw1t4Hn3JbBPNAkmZ6BHBxahS4C3xnJZhmYKhP95HjzQ8z EUJm5eUXDxTqpgj8X2pheO8UQoZOqQ0EqatmO+9U3tgDFIFNDsnUOKVAYjqSor2XmJ2j bKEEdcUGQ8cS5uBxX0vyc5fJaGbC4L0FWrf6GtYzPIGuqGPOgSYs8A4R7bB5PdWRQ3oA uA3MPvlG8wTcVSdXW+4PXJPzC4YRoobOmuOj8aB1Au2rhQvOCjTwrCLtIqsj/QOzLmaR V+IbQOiK1Z4dHW4o/cOMgAoOpeH5hUlDuA6T8aceCduPGv14v0JlU1UBxAUBo4gx22bd oJbw==
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=eWbrf6IHFMGn1zm15wR0lDcFNf3aTTbBizU5D4RznGI=; b=Q1c+DWrqT6tq4oXOetg1TIR4j4L21XSo+qmROe6xGrG+vuub9EODaO8l54R3Y2WNtf H2Tt6mcPxp5t0sSpiNTSbCk4ga3SkCadm9OvcDm36zQ2ugBLoRsoJ3rHA7aR2cRgcoOu X0O1aJ5z0TqrZmLdJMP88O6Bjr0blHeuS/cFCspG53StL7sJgRgvFyWLCPCjrT8N0gLU adNBF+vidvBnaRdxkT17QR8RnlDH34jzpOMqIr75u0bPPn0H5ZXJV6BzQ0PvIQJHCp9d vcd274Raj4KkCFBwlDMUjj4LZkk8u+g28+len5oCvfKDZCJVBzNc+UmJzNHi2jQcqcgq 8sRQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51DjOqUtDgLSg3VxxhSQLgzRSZRjO01jU+c7LoJ/es+uo6Rccds+ T0aW5y57x5y3SsY8nVRA5N2+ehoEfsM303Mz2Z3o5WYn4tE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdZVPZicl6R9LCpZ9JI93paAFzm6V/n7irD0E7sg1JaJ/+WgmbNcl0J1zqiPehJ6a77CWY19+We1FzY1qsVdelM=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:3f07:: with SMTP id m7-v6mr21411303otc.232.1537448377798; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 05:59:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cafa1282-ae6a-93de-ea4a-d100af28d8b8@digitaldissidents.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1809201347140.3596@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1809201347140.3596@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
From: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 12:59:25 +0000
Message-ID: <CACWOCC-+4ErBhvGmuBynjsdpwq_nVm3K1W0nZLuOR1s=QDWO-A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
Cc: Niels ten Oever <lists@digitaldissidents.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/6hmNFPNjEnaEqaSh40KJNWA2uPU>
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 12:59:41 -0000

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 12:51 PM Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> wrote:
> A lot of this problematic terminology is metaphorical in some way. If you
> strive to use descriptive terms, rather than metaphorical terms, then you
> should end up with language that is more straightforward and clear.
>
> For example, block list / allow list.

This for me is a good example of an improvement. I've used the terms
white/blacklist a lot in context of teaching routing security around
the world, but I now see that allowlist/blocklist is a far better (and
prescriptive) term.

I appreciate this being discussed in IETF.

Kind regards,

Job