Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
Glenn Deen <rgd.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 21 September 2018 20:48 UTC
Return-Path: <rgd.ietf@gmail.com>
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 D8ED4130DC1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 13:48:44 -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, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 NoZhcKSHakE0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 13:48:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x631.google.com (mail-pl1-x631.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::631]) (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 BD27312785F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 13:48:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x631.google.com with SMTP id t20-v6so3010811ply.13 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 13:48:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date:message-id :accept-language:content-language:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version; bh=iuaog6mLxZdS0/6VzUzsx2dGpsx7ow6WWDPObr3GFGY=; b=tYKpbOM1yudRyX/JC78tz9XMo9OuWtmduzWnH4DRcuz7nfn0vIMFtNJ23P7ozyi6xo gkoJ/f0R0TZdB9RoDh6j6FhtFzxQGfXK8mFloG0M888SR4igetR07U4Oxb/W72Fx9NuW Zojt0mHlBNut0dV+sRdCqPbGWsfnwKnqv6htM0dyAVhqht0VapghkYsIlpbvityqDz+e xxfrRH48yBSZD3/UWH/1FXAoyluB/UAMtQ6tUkPL77/a7umX2bD5fgX5T41iqL8/bwho B5QNvKEH1jHUa5w5zHEN3NQAhtmVcPqFC5PylVhiWgLVqUPAqP2vgzrPP8tqfXZ942B4 67TQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date :message-id:accept-language:content-language :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=iuaog6mLxZdS0/6VzUzsx2dGpsx7ow6WWDPObr3GFGY=; b=ZeSQyqhOApHeYOb+ntFG5GAaj2aTci7+ySpCFYoQ9sG1l9sLegBTcIfZpnRNYxFNif Q51UXWi2bRgOYyod5DAuz0Bb29rDqSLhWXC5A70NDhCNoJQx9rTwOnVf6JNLrmsGJy3v E295HL8gPY7t8nmIknqVub5fMRJP3rszaWsWe/L23cmQ/TuSiacLDsYENhmMMti8W5rk rcLSXRte+C2IlT+ndC6d/0z3Z4P7VzKMopkxl6WEAVhUEl+w3A9Vqx2+paUy04C6zukz taO8S45j7qQONHJJXvgxOrSCLz6V2uHPA6Xb5968pbwYFn6B8FAwoT3Q4EyU0C3obJSi 3Q4g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfoinq1b8gl1f558msWL+70hu+RauH7Zl7x7n9a8JGfvovtHFFrtT ThESk9A/pXqMd6WA8IlKqNL0gV2G
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV636OBwskBpEsgMRRCLt1N+YxhEvKPFPcUAjcKArmuv+O0VMnKDxriT0zKeTqiy0YXCuCYmNiQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7604:: with SMTP id k4-v6mr3947839pll.170.1537562922001; Fri, 21 Sep 2018 13:48:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from CY4PR0101MB2966.prod.exchangelabs.com ([40.97.138.101]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o62-v6sm35336052pfb.0.2018.09.21.13.48.40 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 21 Sep 2018 13:48:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Glenn Deen <rgd.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
Thread-Topic: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
Thread-Index: AQHUUex5Rq3nfmgu806HN9nQ3EXMCQ==
X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 2
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 20:48:39 +0000
Message-ID: <CY4PR0101MB296642D3F6178B6AE6ADA5D1A6120@CY4PR0101MB2966.prod.exchangelabs.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: -1
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-RecordReviewCfmType: 0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/9uIN5Ohl2s2A2v2x1nfie4z0wb4>
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: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 20:48:45 -0000
Aren't we being very English and US culturally centric and ignoring the rest of the globe in this discussion ? Terms like man-in-the-middle, blacklist and whitelist may have additional cultural centric connotations assigned to them by regional cultural uses, but in the wider world view there are a lot of cultures and a lot of local meanings. Yet these words are also terms of art that on their own carry both defined and understood meaning within the context of technical documentation. They are defined and have history that technical practitioners worldwide have learned to understand and know. Many terms have been used for decades and are in textbooks and training programs around the world. It's the aspect of being well established in the context of technical documentation that is import here as that is the output of the IETF and that output is read and used by many non-native English speakers that in their training in the terminology of the art have come to know and understand the technical meanings of the terms when used in the work of the IETF. They themselves may have little or no awareness of the cultural connotations other groups have assigned the words, but they do know and recognize the technical terms and the meaning in the art. Those words are also translated into other languages, and deviating from terms of art makes it harder for translators to carry over the specific technical meaning. Inventing new words to replace the technical terms can cause problems for the non-English readers of the IETF's documents. It makes it more difficult for them to follow and use the documents produced by the IETF and somewhat disenfranchises them. This stuff has significant technical consequences too. Changing words like changing units of measure is on the surface simple, but in practice hard - an inch is 2.54 centimeters inches but ask someone who isn't used to metric to gauge a properly cut steak as 3.5 centimeters and you may end with anything from a see through slice to a pot roast. Silly examples aside, there have been serious industrial accidents when someone has mistaken the meaning or units of an important measurement. So technical words and their established meaning in art do matter and it' non-trivial to change them. This is exactly the sort of the unintended consequence John Levine mentioned when you approach the problem with a narrow set of objectives and don't consider other consequences and aspects of the situation. As a suggestion - Instead of a posting on the IETF's main town square which results in opinions being thrown about and little progress - it may be much more productive to have an I-D which has a problem statement, covers possible solution approaches and also includes discussion of negative impacts to the proposed solutions so that the problem and solution space can be discussed and explored. When the I-D is available it could be discussed in a BoF perhaps to see if there is enough community interest in moving forward with such work. It's much more effective than the current town square discussion being had and produces something material along the way. -glenn deen
- 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