IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: USA dominion: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Mon, 27 July 2020 14:49 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
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 4C9AC3A1A6E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 07:49:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.989
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.989 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_BL=0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_L3=0.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 cKwpvNx4lj9d for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 07:49:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 27FB53A1A23 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 07:45:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 44621 invoked from network); 27 Jul 2020 14:27:41 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 27 Jul 2020 14:27:41 -0000
Subject: Re: USA dominion: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <35BE966B-63A2-438F-BD61-570E86ED2E1A@strayalpha.com> <297BF899-553D-44DB-AB56-04280F776F7A@employees.org> <6646575A-E6EA-4B4E-AC1B-F8B84B5A1203@strayalpha.com> <20200724225654.GB43465@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <6.2.5.6.2.20200725130205.0bc4e420@elandnews.com> <9bc160ec-a038-b90a-4b93-0b668f9137c1@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <6.2.5.6.2.20200726072909.110ce380@elandnews.com>
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <39d161ad-5fda-4417-1434-336cc0939028@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 23:45:49 +0900
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: <6.2.5.6.2.20200726072909.110ce380@elandnews.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/WE9SHZzl9dKIMOK9Nl_wgkeVDwk>
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: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 14:49:58 -0000

S Moonesamy wrote:

>> A problem is that, even with US local wordings, "slave" does not
>> specifically mean [removed] slaves unless otherwise mentioned from
>> the context, which should be the reason why US people, long
>> after the era of slavery of [removed], coined and accepted the
>> terminologies with "master/slave".
>>
>> So, I think it's just temporal instability in US to be better
>> ignored.
> 
> RFC 1034 was written by Mr Mockapetris, ISI, and published in 1987.  
> There isn't any occurrence of the word "slave" in that technical 
> specification.  The word was introduced in technical specifications 

I thank you to have proved my point that saying "slave" has never
been a problem in the then-US-dominant Internet community even
after 1987.

						Masataka Ohta

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email