Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 20 September 2018 20:57 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 41CA4130E19 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 13:57:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 SE-5XJ14ZZsz for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 13:57:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x535.google.com (mail-pg1-x535.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::535]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 244FA1200D6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 13:57:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x535.google.com with SMTP id r1-v6so4975583pgp.11 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 13:57:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=eWQCDSPaAJgs0DaUUhCLoHaCS5bvmVtvf2HS7dezsuo=; b=W542AMVGPuZMD2sdcPxIsyTRMVIfZ0A9umXIUkYME4pIBSaf54vU0w4fP5yW2mJdkj 4RZJv8+kMlrAJqsS9ULoY4r53Ell5Wdeu8qde3z0tmjSwQZ4bKiIsti9i6DNz76a5dMv Dva7407USoCzUtnqdqmqNYkZs6wEZa5o67Olgkbge6Z5ltUsaO+oEzZATm3qqpERbXgy 0o6733GAMOV+MqpFmc9p/XzyzzrOngREITkYJSbjFTC3BNP1AmzJ9YiRVH8nRH+n8mny G/QVC5EpAEz4lkbCGotxRqi3OfXtaoTQ/ASi/6yvBOQGWrDT4t6l/FdJMnTdERFhdfwI guaA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=eWQCDSPaAJgs0DaUUhCLoHaCS5bvmVtvf2HS7dezsuo=; b=Gw/EoMAHC5+BMln9OqZwXwLyiv7jmUKeI6q30P0ZMTkeCfLZB+sStd81w4Za7RefXc O05SRmUYUXXuc2dXOkMul5ICdBuDn3sGr41vXEwm//Lu8EIEcrS2hBCn6zVjVFV3zCBY ea2x73W21JUt71uSAsdnVBzHm9C1utIJlI36QJoUga2PH6lOgCofg5Gz7zdPxzTGZu76 Exzq9ZxWMRgNduqOrA9d1uohbQYeqSiEIWtGOPnUWgBT7d1kRO2ymHYKfvHJwNncaIDS aOEO2qhA24Jo85CsFvJ17R8E3sXggqVOOMp4sI5IYTSGcTQZtokcNmvXcgCUIl8qb1D6 gMuw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51BXn3MiTgcBEcEADB4wiK9HRi8X20fpthh+xdXGvTIHhRJguqvF fcoZJS5XLj9yqAZA7tA8CPOFgdaA
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdblMPOgZ9fb2eBj8YougYbortacOG3/wuHL6gPxQdmuD43fB2dGLIBVkFwY0w5pHiM0wPzhdQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:455b:: with SMTP id s88-v6mr42426135pfa.203.1537477067067; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 13:57:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([118.148.76.40]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k26-v6sm44483777pfb.167.2018.09.20.13.57.45 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Sep 2018 13:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <cafa1282-ae6a-93de-ea4a-d100af28d8b8@digitaldissidents.org> <CABSMSPXxg-UTZzXREcbYQiQgzAwXP4uUGPtN+jWrYomZRQxL-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CFA08128-7D9E-4CA8-B6FD-F3D9A37DD18F@gmail.com> <d3b29086-9096-2087-7448-a9673a69f7f5@digitaldissidents.org>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3c681dff-5d81-5619-8b8e-76f48cfb16c2@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 08:57:41 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d3b29086-9096-2087-7448-a9673a69f7f5@digitaldissidents.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/UdJJcu5OKaz2WT8_wdh_becoaJc>
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 20:57:50 -0000
On 2018-09-20 23:41, Niels ten Oever wrote: > On 09/20/2018 01:25 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote: >> The term master/slave is used when it is technically required that the instruction is executed without equivocation. > > Would leader/follower (as implemented by Django) not work just as well? > It seems to work for them for quite a while already. No. Master/slave, whether we like it or not, implies that A gives orders and B has no choice but to obey them. Leader/follower doesn't have that strength. (However, in most cases it's sufficient to name the master but use no special name for the other nodes.) IMHO, the only sane outcome is to use common sense as well as avoiding clearly offensive terms. That means, to me, that master/slave and man-in-the-middle (for example) are OK, and so are Alice, Bob and Eve in security analysis. Blacklist/whitelist is slightly tricky - I suppose the most PC solution would be redlist/greenlist. I think that one sentence in the Tao and the RFC style guide would take care of this topic. "Don't use offensive words but apply common sense in using 'politically correct' language." Brian
- 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