Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

While there are always risks in trying to guess how people will react to 
such things, I do not see it as likely.

For example, in replacing blacklist / whitelist with blocklist / 
permitlist (or similar terms) one actual gets clearer language that is 
closer to the intended meaning.

Similarly, in the discussion of DNS servers, it is pretty clear that the 
existing terms are not particularly good analogies for what is happening.

Yours,
Joel

PS: The lsit does not ahve to have just one alternative.  For some / 
many of the terms being discussed, the better words will be different in 
the different places the older terms were used.

PPS: I am NOT proposing any effort to rewrite existing RFCs.

On 8/8/2020 11:20 PM, Loa Andersson wrote:
> Joel,
> 
> Inline plese.
> 
> On 09/08/2020 10:42, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> While full coordiantion probably needs something akin to RSE 
>> involvement, it seems to me that it would be a useful step if the IETF 
>> could at least figure out how to create a working list along the lines 
>> of what Joe Touch posted.  (Here are some words.  Here are some other 
>> words that you could / should / might / ... consider using in place of 
>> them.)
> 
> I'm a bit reluctant to such a list, there is a risk that if the list
> says instead of word 1 use word 2, we create a way of saying "word 1",
> with another word, and over time the meaning will slowly change since
> "everyone" know what was intended.
> 
> /Loa
>>
>> Having such a list with some resemblance of IETF rough consensus that 
>> following it is a good idea would help us move forward without getting 
>> bogged down in either "whose job is a formal decision?" or "when will 
>> there be an RSE?".
>>
>> Such a list would, it seems to me, help genart reviewers at least keep 
>> the question in mind.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>>
>> On 8/8/2020 10:12 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> --On Saturday, August 8, 2020 13:52 -0400 Michael StJohns
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Exactly.   This affects more than just the IETF, and any
>>>> result would have a stronger impact if agreed to by more than
>>>> just the IETF.  (To avoid doubt, I agree this is an RSE task).
>>>>
>>>> On 8/8/2020 5:00 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>>>>> I disagree with this approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> We should ask the RFC Series Editor to consult international
>>>>> experts on technical language and the editors of other major
>>>>> standards such as IEEE, ETSI and ITU and report back to us
>>>>> with a recommendation.
>>>
>>> Agreed, but with two suggestions/provisos (both derived from
>>> comments made by others):
>>>
>>> (1) Unless we want to push the IETF toward a relapse in which we
>>> are a US-based body with some "foreigners" allowed to
>>> participate, whatever mechanisms are developed need to be
>>> sensitive to inappropriate terminology in other languages,
>>> whether natively there, plausible translations, or
>>> transliterations.  We don't need to boil all oceans all at once,
>>> but we have to start with the understanding that US English is
>>> not the only language or culture when inappropriate language
>>> occurs.
>>>
>>> (2) While I agree that this should be an RSE task, I think we
>>> need to remember that we don't have an RSE.  While it might be
>>> possible to ask John to start the research project (although
>>> that is pushing the boundaries of what he signed up for) he
>>> doesn't have, and it might be problematic to give him, the
>>> authority to start making decisions in this space.  We should
>>> also note that one reading of the trends in the RFC Futures
>>> discussion (not, obviously, the only reading) is that we don't
>>> really need an RSE, especially an RSE with any authority.  If
>>> that was actually the trend in that area, then assigning this
>>> type of responsibility to the RSE might be something of a
>>> contradiction.
>>>
>>>      john
>>>
>>
>