Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 11:44:49AM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> You should not be using MITM for any situation where a positive or even a
> neutral disposition is intended. It is unclear at best, I regard it as
> wrong.

Isn't that a matter of perspective ?
Whose declaration of disposition do you use ?  The one of the MITM ?
I can only call myself MITM if i think my intentions are evil ?

How about all those middleboxes NAT/FW whose operators want to
do something good for Alice&Bob ?

Toerless

> If I talk about an Email relay being a MITM then I am saying that changing
> my character set, wrapping lines and all the really obnoxious behavior they
> routinely engage in are attacks.
> 
> 
> Of course on the gender neutral side, MITM attacks are traditionally
> performed by Eve. And historically, many of the intercept operators on the
> allied side were women. It was one of the few field combat roles they were
> permitted.