Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Sun, 09 August 2020 21:25 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 1A9443A0DF7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 14:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.049
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.949, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 cdSABZdQqZY9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 14:25:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (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 DF41E3A0E06 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 14:25:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BPsZt4zL9z6GBwW; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 14:25:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1597008342; bh=TBMjsvahX7pFZDG+eGtjyIvCNubqG1r9AMAhcf2OYds=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=hUUknYmvtVwtyK5Hozvxz3zi4RrJrwVOJU/eS8gPuKXvDxiHmmSiD2T3OEoVe1KKS Wj+wtmgiYIJKeOayYrhYCXWzDioBznxtBqlwUaIioi89U859w5hQb7c3QPFWJ7FRmV tkTTr2SsSXVNFkFlZ9kWkUE/Az5CUupTiesxwVrs=
X-Quarantine-ID: <NOHQ0MJq2ou5>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BPsZt1Q6Dz6GBFB; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 14:25:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
To: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <20200809175214.GA3100@localhost> <DEC952F4-379C-4C97-8772-DA6C556A3AF1@strayalpha.com> <5d3052b7-b95b-0c62-1757-306560a30348@acm.org> <E1C0BBFF-0BC2-4D46-8817-E82BD2186042@gmail.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <ab2c95a9-3974-23da-e289-b84321f0d8b4@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2020 17:25:41 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <E1C0BBFF-0BC2-4D46-8817-E82BD2186042@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/SjtS4E_Op7HamsijyRnsJCp57R4>
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: Sun, 09 Aug 2020 21:25:55 -0000

Chess Master, as with Master of Arts, and Masterpiece, ... is a usage of 
"master" indicating one who posses a very high degree of skill.

While I do not know what others expect, I do not expect those usages to 
change.  Words have many meanings.

The usage of "master" meaning "the one in charge" has, over time, become 
contaminated with historical usage of a more specific kind of charge. 
While there are usage that may be reasonable to retain (outside of IETF 
purview), it seems to me that we should be looking at the places we use 
that term and see whether it is a good choice.
While "Master key" is outside of the IETF purview, it is actually a very 
odd idiom.  "Master secret", which is in our purview, is similarly an 
odd usage that does not do a good job of conveying our meaning.

We often end up with sloppy terms.  We often just live with them.  Even 
though it makes it harder for folks to understand our work.  In this 
case, we are being asked to look for better terms because the 
historically chosen terms have bagggage we distinctly did not intent.

Yours,
Joel

On 8/9/2020 5:06 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 9 Aug 2020, at 22:56, Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 8/9/20 12:23 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Aug 9, 2020, at 10:54 AM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Really, asserting that "master secret"
>>>> is problematic is simply credibility-destroying.
>>>
>>> Besides your concern, how does one secret actively control another?
>>
>> You are insisting that the only possible meaning of "master" is to control some[one|thing] else.  According to New Oxford American Dictionary Third edition, that's true when used it as a noun, but not when used as an adjective or a verb.
> 
> It is not true for nouns either.
> 
> A master of science does not control science and a master of business administration doe not control business administration.
> 
> A school master (this is a British usage) is just a male teacher. He does not tend to control the school.
> 
> A chess master can beat me at chess, but he doesn’t control the game
> 
> And there are many more.
> 
>