Re: AUTH48 and "Guidance for NIST Staff on Using Inclusive Language in Documentary Standards"

[Benson Muite <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jun 9, 2025, at 12:42 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Jay,
> At 01:21 PM 05-06-2025, Jay Daley wrote:
>>People may not be aware that while the guidance has been withdrawn, 
>>the table of examples included in the document has not:
>>
>> 
>>https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions#table1
>>
>>That table is under a section titled "Plain Language" and is 
>>explained as "The table below displays how some sentences could be 
>>edited (or not) to incorporate plain and precise language.".  e.g. 
>>replacing "whitelist" with "allowlist".
>>
>>This framing of "plain and precise" could be considered clearer and 
>>less contentious (and therefore more likely to be adopted by 
>>authors) than the framing of "inclusive".
>
> A national standard fulfills the needs of a country.  A non-national 
> standard has a wider scope.  An organization seeking to devise 
> non-national standards usually brings together people affiliated with 
> businesses from different countries.  This is where the organization 
> has to tackle problems such as language.  The organization which was 
> known as "IETF" used the English language for historical reasons.  It 
> attracted authors from different countries over the years.  Some of 
> the people reading their works might not speak English in their every 
> day life.  That does not necessarily mean that they do not know how 
> to read or write in English.

This probably falls out of scope for IESG.  It may be helpful to have a
focused IAB program on where the IETF should be going as a lean, effective
and efficient international standards organization.

>
> According to NIST PR 1502.01, "The withdrawn publication and cover 
> page will remain at the same DOI, unless it is determined that the 
> publication should be removed from distribution."  The document which 
> you cited could be removed from distribution or amended if the 
> publisher wishes to do that.
>
> As for what is "plain and precise", that is influenced by the needs 
> of the organization, e.g. the organization aims to fulfill the needs 
> of a country.  From what I understand, the issue here is about what 
> are the appropriate words to use in an IETF RFC.  It is awkward to 
> tell someone who has been writing in English for several years how to 
> write in English.  It can also cause some debate, e.g. please see the 
> thread at 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/iUbkutdNpXYgua8kejbsa63ZMv

This link is broken.

>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy