Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 11:00:04PM -0800, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 8/8/20 10:38 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
> > I'm asking for evidence that we have a problem.  I'm quite aware that
> > there are RFCs that use various terms some/many consider offensive, but
> > I expect most of those are long in the past, and have to do with DNS.
> 
> Well, if you actually look at the file that Fred provided, you'll
> find 34 8000-series RFCs (that series is obviously incomplete), 36
> 7000-series RFCs, 41 6000-series RFCs, 34 5000-series RFCs, 28
> 4000-series RFCs, 27 3000-series RFCs, 32 2000-series RFCs, 18
> 1000-series RFCs, 33 current working group drafts, and 42

Are there generally DNS- or SMTP-related?

> individual drafts.  "Master secret" is, of course, used quite
> heavily in TLS and TLS-related documents as one example of non-DNS
> use.

I have long avoided "master/slave" in my work (except in open source
projects where the use predated my involvement and is baked into
interfaces).  However, how is "master secret" possibly offensive when
there are no "slave secrets"?  Assume I'm not a native English speaker
(I'm not).

Nico
--