Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

On 7/23/2020 2:37 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> It seems to me that the first place to do this is in I-Ds, even if we 
> do not have strict enforcement mechanisms.  And if it is to be done in 
> I-Ds, it is up to the individual streams to do so.  Having the IETF 
> discuss doing this for IETF i_Ds seems a really effective and sensible 
> starting point.
>
> Yours,
> Joel

Do you expect the IAB and IRSG and the ISE to also do an evolution like 
this?   For example: Should the use of "master key"be banned in CFRG 
documents?  Isn't that a lot of redundant work?

When you say "IETF discuss", I'm assuming you have a WG in mind to do 
this work?  Or are we going to stand up yet another WG?  Or is the IESG 
going to decide on its own perhaps with some community input?

Why would you not let the RSE or the Temp (John) manage the process of 
updating the acceptable phrasings in the RFC series? Isn't that directly 
in their job description?

Later, Mike