Re: AUTH48 and "Guidance for NIST Staff on Using Inclusive Language in Documentary Standards"

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Q,
At 03:26 AM 04-06-2025, Q Misell wrote:
>I currently have an RFC in the AUTH48 stage, and as part of this the 
>RFC editor asks me to review my text for possible issues around 
>inclusive and respectful language, or rather lack thereof.
>Unfortunately, the accepted reference document to check language 
>against, and to provide guidance on the construction of inclusive 
>text is NIST 8366 "Guidance for NIST Staff on Using Inclusive 
>Language in Documentary Standards". There is nothing wrong with the 
>(former) contents of this document, rather that if one tries to 
>access it nowaday they are presented with a 1 page PDF simply 
>stating that "this paper has been withdrawn to

The comment from the RFC Editor was: "Note that our script did not 
flag any words in particular, but this should still be reviewed as a 
best practice".  The person who wrote that note also provided a 
reference to the "online Style Guide".

>I recognise this situation is not anyone with the IETF community's 
>fault - its a ludicrous situation to be placed in by the political 
>whims of a wannabe authoritarian. But the problem exists, and we 
>should probably do something about it. As a starting point, I 
>suggest we adopt the joint inclusive language guidance of the ISO 
>and the IEC [1]; as these are both well respected international 
>standards organisations, this maintains the stated goal of adopting 
>NIST 8366 - in that the language used in the IETF is standardised 
>across industry [2].
>
>I am, of course, open to other suggestions about what to do about 
>this situation; and I particularly encourage the IESG to put forward 
>their suggestions to the community.
>
>For now, I will continue editing my RFC based on my understanding of 
>inclusive language, and hope that I do not make any mistakes that a 
>solid reference would've prevented.

A document can be retracted by its publisher.  The case which you 
mentioned was discussed on an IETF mailing list [1].  Nobody 
suggested citing the ISO/IEC document as guidance.  I was looking up 
ISO/IEC 8824-1:2021.  I found out that I would have to send Swiss 
francs 221 to be able to read it [2].  Why is IEC providing the 
guidance for Swiss franc 0 and charging Swiss francs 221 for its 
standard? [3]  Is the guidance a standard or something else?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/terminology/hTbe8e2Iey_SvZNyjDRRVZ_1Nws/
2. https://www.iso.org/standard/81416.html
3. https://webstore.iec.ch/en/publication/69675