SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
Anne-Marie Eklund-Löwinder <anne-marie.eklund-lowinder@iis.se> Thu, 20 September 2018 12:09 UTC
Return-Path: <anne-marie.eklund-lowinder@iis.se>
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 A5703130F0A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 05:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.322
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.322 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=iis.se
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 Gl7h5st2lHQn for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 05:09:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay2.iis.se (relay2.iis.se [IPv6:2001:67c:124c:2007::38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E72D4130EE0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 05:09:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=iis.se; s=iis2015; h=received:received:received:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date: message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language:content-language: x-ms-has-attach:x-ms-tnef-correlator:x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: x-originating-ip:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=mvAn0AIOrWJ+TNvamOapRmAnXKIVxlFe+YLrHWcuJ7c=; b=UWqgqXKmhsUigwPZWelSTxHQk9BfJUXq5a5xNttgtVOa7yqeWjCXbSVuP31MxobyMAvPa6OAXZn3h pmdYsHDsp49kcDQXmgeAYImtpVAe1oggvRHUWDAQLeLpWPJYl6bZpqnjwhPiYBi7x1ff+0756zeUlM vs6QU0k9V/K/3RaU=
Received: from exchange02.office.nic.se (unknown [2001:67c:124c:2043::25]) by relay2.iis.se (Halon) with ESMTPS id f95e75d8-bccd-11e8-a624-00505682e997; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 12:09:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from exchange02.office.nic.se (2001:67c:124c:2043::25) by exchange02.office.nic.se (2001:67c:124c:2043::25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 14:09:07 +0200
Received: from exchange02.office.nic.se ([fe80::681b:9cef:675b:d880]) by exchange02.office.nic.se ([fe80::681b:9cef:675b:d880%14]) with mapi id 15.00.1347.000; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 14:09:07 +0200
From: Anne-Marie Eklund-Löwinder <anne-marie.eklund-lowinder@iis.se>
To: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>, "lists@digitaldissidents.org" <lists@digitaldissidents.org>
CC: "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: SV: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
Thread-Topic: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
Thread-Index: AQHUUMQhcfznNTLk0EKpSnIUnuTPCKT47WwAgAAi0CA=
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 12:09:06 +0000
Message-ID: <c755471a7f744fdd958759c6c5001147@exchange02.office.nic.se>
References: <cafa1282-ae6a-93de-ea4a-d100af28d8b8@digitaldissidents.org> <CAKHUCzxL8xgn2D2W9G=Qk=AXzyw4mmcqPii6GKBSiByRyxbq+Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKHUCzxL8xgn2D2W9G=Qk=AXzyw4mmcqPii6GKBSiByRyxbq+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: sv-SE, en-US
Content-Language: sv-SE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [2001:67c:124c:5024::139a]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/MdXP2qLBcaF7YSjdyKrlol2q6jo>
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: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 12:09:21 -0000
Hi all, Some time ago we had a standardisation committee in Sweden, running a project defining the terminology in Swedish for the information security area. They came up with Janus-attack rather than man in the middle-attack (the latter sounds weird in Swedish). Janus was a two faced God from ancient Roman religion/myth. He was the God of beginnings, gates, transitions, time, duality, doorways, passages, and ending. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus It didn't take off unfortunately, I consider it quite clever. That said, I can't really see how the term "Man-in-the-middle" can be offensive. Kind regards, Anne-Marie Eklund Löwinder Chief Information Security Officer IIS (The Internet Infrastructure Foundation) Phone: +46 734 315 310 https://www.iis.se Visitors: Hammarby Kaj 10D Mail: Box 92073, 120 07 Stockholm > -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > Från: ietf <ietf-bounces@ietf.org> För Dave Cridland > Skickat: den 20 september 2018 13:51 > Till: lists@digitaldissidents.org > Kopia: ietf@ietf.org Discussion <ietf@ietf.org> > Ämne: Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs > > Back when I was even more clueless than I am today, and actually ran DNS > servers, we used the terms "primary" and "secondary" as a matter of course. > Secondaries copied the data from primaries. > > So far, so good. > > Then we added a third nameserver, and of course that must be the tertiary, > used only when *both* the primary and secondary had failed. > > When I realised my stupidity, I avoided the terms "primary" and "secondary" > in the workplace, and instead used the terms "master" and "slave", which > were less easily confused - or rather, made me less easily confused by them. > The fact that "master/slave" was well understood within engineering helped > enormously. > > But it's possible to remove the word "slave" easily - indeed, when discussing > distributed systems such as clustering, the literature tends to refer to a > "master", but not so much to "slaves". > > "Blacklist" and "whitelist" are well-known terms, but they can be avoided > with small effort to provide synonyms which are more easily understood - > "Blocklist" and "Permitlist" are trivial examples here. But if someone says > "There is a whitelist", then I also know the default is to deny. So we'll need to > be a bit more explicit about the default state, perhaps. In other words, I > worry about changing these terms, but the possibility for confusion is low if > we do. > > "Man-in-the-middle" I'm clearly too stupid to understand why this might be > offensive, but equally I have no idea what term of art would suffice instead. > > I have no objection to thinking twice before using a term that could offend, > but I have huge objections to replacing existing terms with new ones that > could confuse instead. > > But still, I'm a white male living in a country that hasn't had slaves within its > own borders, at least, for over a thousand years, so I freely admit I may not > understand the gravity of the situation. > > So I'd like to hear from actual people who are actually made to feel > uncomfortable about these terms, rather than people saying that other > people have heard of some people who might be offended. > > Dave. > > On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 at 10:26, Niels ten Oever <lists@digitaldissidents.org > <mailto:lists@digitaldissidents.org> > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > On the hrpc-list [0] there has been an intense conversation > which was > spurred by the news that the Python community removed > Master/Slave > terminology from its programming language [1]. > > In the discussion that followed it was remarked that in RFCs > terms like > Master/Slave, blacklist/whitelist, man-in-middle, and other > terminology > that is offensive to some people and groups is quite common. > > This is not a discussion that can be resolved in hrpc, but rather > should > be dealt with in the IETF community (because hrpc doesn't > make policy > for terminology in the IETF), which is why I am posting this > here. > > If people find the discussion worthwhile, we might also be just > in time > to request a BoF on this topic. > > Looking forward to discuss. > > Best, > > Niels > > > [0] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hrpc/ > [1] > https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8x7akv/mastersl > ave-terminology-was-removed-from-python-programming-language > > > -- > Niels ten Oever > Researcher and PhD Candidate > Datactive Research Group > University of Amsterdam > > PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 > 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 > >
- 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