IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Sun, 09 August 2020 20:01 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.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 40C413A0D9B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 13:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.317
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.317 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.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 uxVlabEAAsQx for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 13:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-4.web-hosting.com (server217-4.web-hosting.com [198.54.116.98]) (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 A89CD3A0DD0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Aug 2020 13:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Sender: Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender :Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=0OxpR3BZJm7EKT5RiNYYV7U1/g8U2Z+XgI59ydaThc0=; b=tH10bBwVqrsr1ROlQxNVATGGeT zk5E70rG1Kx+x9z/SpU9uB4dix6c94MmV1qp+pLdq5HWdm7R7AzXsrAk6/WKGWU2j7EMxHKJfva+5 Yw/V2/D38WN6zZam4utEoJdeJplgGndiUICJ5eOtNHb34LAJCgdI9Efe1sGhC14Jf7WnUzJEsj+QN rsiwI2y6hdlYlaVlnsGOkyEpuwskeKCzvafFihU3S0GIlGCikCszclSUJo5ln7ma/2H3rRYQnVoJU g+JXbGp9SGcW45TkN0adJ5dgsmrHO4WzoYbn5uNiPisVKcCOeFayi8Coy2Yz9HXUnxWl3wcgQ8I8c VmYcmUXA==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:55105 helo=[192.168.1.5]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1k4rVl-000WHR-3c; Sun, 09 Aug 2020 16:01:45 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-D67B1B5A-82D9-4576-ABA6-07B54CC98F77"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <5d3052b7-b95b-0c62-1757-306560a30348@acm.org>
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2020 13:01:40 -0700
Cc: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, Lloyd Wood <lloyd.wood=40yahoo.co.uk@dmarc.ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Message-Id: <4900BCF2-83E0-4BE7-852A-0A205D69ECB4@strayalpha.com>
References: <5d3052b7-b95b-0c62-1757-306560a30348@acm.org>
To: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17G68)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/TnMnvT5_CnzD9zF1iNM8J8Fxd3k>
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 20:01:47 -0000

Either the term helps understanding or it hinders it. If you need to invoke word origins or dictionaries, you’re already indicating the term by itself isn’t helpful. 

Joe

> On Aug 9, 2020, at 12:56 PM, 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.
> 
>> 
>> Or is it just that there is one root key from which others are derived?
>> 
>> Ie why even bother defending a term that’s inaccurate to start?
>> 
>> Joe
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Marc Petit-Huguenin
> Email: marc@petit-huguenin.org
> Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org
> Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email