Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs

[Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:

> And what if your last name were Moriarty?  You'd never have the community be okay with you as a Security AD? ;-)

For years I bit my lip instead of asking "family of?" :)

> but don't think there is a racial connotation to black/white list.  White lists being preferred may be where the issue
> arrises I'm guessing.  Switching would be fine with me.

These small implications do add up to a group of people feeling the
negative practical effects, so I think we should work on not being
an even very small part of the problem.

> I already say active interception or session hijacking and think that's a fine replacement for man-in-the-middle.  I didn't see an issue with
> man-in-the-middle.

It's similar to "manned spaceflight". NASA's guidelines have been for
a very long time to use "crewed flight". If that helps a single girl to
not deem becoming an astronaut[1] as impossible, that's a win. Although
it is also a little different here because I hope no girls aspire to
become a man-in-the-middle :)

I think monkey/machine in-the-middle works and it allows us to keep
using the MITM acronym. And "session hijacking" to me could be done
without being in the path, so I wouldn't equate the two terms.

Paul