RE: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> Thu, 20 September 2018 14:40 UTC
Return-Path: <jdrake@juniper.net>
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 3B2DD130F53 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 07:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.71
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.71 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
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 ZqOKGeqLba2h for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 07:40:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com [67.231.152.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12878130F3F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 07:40:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108161.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w8KEebqq029348; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 07:40:50 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=UYUYIyrLiYxinN9pZelxvP1mgnuiVQH3KFtqd/0PZr8=; b=D5A9uVBK4SxrMyzQGl76PV46qQgBNgoUk4DxQsgGj3bfmAkqC32j/72wpoHgo5GWWa1c SyhdAzYrnXRi84OFwRGMIPaAtmv3JT17/0QmbuGLxZUMWQF2w5WhcC4h6C8UrIZ4VQgo bNpx/IdOOLZJ091tvkP01ob61MLOz/9VdUGvBSM7sf4FyPxC7/uo+Th0MUrzz/Cg1fE0 D9noLIEYPXIVTT5/6QADn47R7/JuwGwXGANkG0jxbAf0Fx2DstX4/g63IiL0uyVpZ9j6 1F58OFQeEByw9/IPy6oHQILp2ekB4px/RIJD2skwg5lcLvKL9ZNSn6vMqAuNirpjbZ2h +Q==
Received: from nam02-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2nam02lp0087.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.87]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2mm720gp72-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 20 Sep 2018 07:40:50 -0700
Received: from BN7PR05MB4354.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.133.223.33) by BN7PR05MB4001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.132.218.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1164.13; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 14:40:48 +0000
Received: from BN7PR05MB4354.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::4862:76f6:5172:de62]) by BN7PR05MB4354.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::4862:76f6:5172:de62%3]) with mapi id 15.20.1164.017; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 14:40:48 +0000
From: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
To: "lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk" <lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk>, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
Thread-Topic: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
Thread-Index: AQHUUO1ejZcCksDIS0u+BDkM26CJ5KT5PaEw
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 14:40:48 +0000
Message-ID: <BN7PR05MB4354B70DAFA13F2C87690D2BC7130@BN7PR05MB4354.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <137564820.4778399.1537453325898.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <137564820.4778399.1537453325898@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <137564820.4778399.1537453325898@mail.yahoo.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
dlp-product: dlpe-windows
dlp-version: 11.0.400.15
dlp-reaction: no-action
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.11]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN7PR05MB4001; 6:ZhLPY8O5IDEd2TrwQNGHEY0gMoBDe8TJRinvhZrs4ZbaNQGOcKVToxusld4AObtTqBn8nL5R7MwkSw7YQITTwUmmiD7vnsuL4vUNT5JUYPEpxBO+st6WVLdUjI1501+6QCVbNlfyCkYYCD1sO6hR8xHmKLF8ViysIKRgI/k8qs85L2PVXF6iUECw+WGEaXxP9v6W6NNVE+xoXPbsGfSdy0ogI8dXY5zI0KP1/P2zTPeF9OSbBb85CdjmTcHGO0HxtPsLEq34ofHyCTeklUCL7GcHpvydLHITfC9ZRcTpoxljYwiPtMs3W1KXi3BT2iGdc1f3EzAFXePHFRFLqbqJqN6J4Yk694QY7lQXXFLZTvNIvruAfRPgVaVnCexA4DZaRsAoiv7PINFuSFksM0NcynY2s4rJpzgY9XcXVkkup80C3jU0fS5r0DCnYoWW/qGg78wLbIJu46nblkHzQcKbpA==; 5:oD0jVbp/mif5WFTEyVDshur7gp3L2vTxovUZ5n5F47QuEKXjsFzU4xBCaP2FCvI0PqfbZhd53s3UiaUzm8c002PjUMcUI0QvJ/bEVI+TTbdHHbEPhiEOVlgFoHSmzh2Iffiw7ZIZ4lYRd0lPhu3BVxd+LsnzLEv0tPcYTA5iSnQ=; 7:c6WuNvXXH59H7a/zYzarFX8RkeAjmjQ5SqsnIqBW1PQqaLZuK5HfuJLmffqpVeTZTynoJQ3mmuqdTaRor/3eOzgk7sy8rPqN/b1wR7QJJ2dTFFRMLtGrNvBV+MwUqibhqYghtExwUV8KP1DId9u4Q+rbewm+i5xblZ+VDrorMsB0GKOAR99D/mZP5vnuKdC87bfBzqiZit4iJQCCyY+eT/s17R67fs4YfD1+x4YqnSH+474bDeoNI/puF1H53UXz
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 4bf5b7f8-68b7-4b8d-65ff-08d61f070e8b
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600074)(711020)(4618075)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:BN7PR05MB4001;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN7PR05MB4001:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN7PR05MB40018595CF6A1AEFAF1ADC61C7130@BN7PR05MB4001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(60152151806142)(21748063052155)(28532068793085);
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(8211001083)(6040522)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(93006095)(93001095)(3231355)(944501410)(52105095)(10201501046)(6055026)(149027)(150027)(6041310)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123562045)(20161123560045)(20161123564045)(20161123558120)(201708071742011)(7699051)(76991041); SRVR:BN7PR05MB4001; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN7PR05MB4001;
x-forefront-prvs: 0801F2E62B
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(366004)(136003)(39860400002)(376002)(346002)(396003)(199004)(189003)(6306002)(74316002)(486006)(54896002)(9686003)(236005)(6436002)(68736007)(8936002)(256004)(105586002)(14444005)(8676002)(19609705001)(53546011)(6506007)(81156014)(81166006)(9326002)(2900100001)(86362001)(5660300001)(53936002)(229853002)(71200400001)(71190400001)(6246003)(55016002)(476003)(446003)(97736004)(99286004)(2906002)(316002)(102836004)(25786009)(186003)(26005)(76176011)(11346002)(478600001)(7736002)(66066001)(7696005)(5250100002)(33656002)(3846002)(2501003)(14454004)(110136005)(106356001)(790700001)(6116002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN7PR05MB4001; H:BN7PR05MB4354.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: zsj5XOigXzS0k9/MZepCTpYko5raTnlFCSD+xYjlwZuzceledSu+65V0tx540dTnoJC8O+Ae+REoctM+0aOCBcGSIIVw+lTyMuXkzY0Lea3zSASLSFR90wZpCjoty9m7Mfv1ktsPfznhP92uD4aKAVitnaDG0WLOgpgsLnSbbkYsg2YXp7SYYLk2vFAG4/FX8k4x9hkEUQ06llimkHdKwnmkFeSYSwSQDq7/PoMctAuP510elFzaIlN31BWe9wNfL5bRbHogvlJfUjCdQnLRldecm5hROtqJCGyWokaf95No3LBukuLDRHf89BVihXydznkTCBDthGAFSQcfNhRFjDcei39YOcctCf5c6q8nhSg=
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BN7PR05MB4354B70DAFA13F2C87690D2BC7130BN7PR05MB4354namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 4bf5b7f8-68b7-4b8d-65ff-08d61f070e8b
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 20 Sep 2018 14:40:48.6541 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN7PR05MB4001
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-09-20_09:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1807170000 definitions=main-1809200145
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/xTRqyOcSVTvfN4HSkB47-lYS4lA>
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 14:41:04 -0000
Hi, Isn’t ‘blackball’ a problematic term? Yours Irrespectively, John From: ietf <ietf-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of lloyd.wood=40yahoo.co.uk@dmarc.ietf.org Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2018 10:22 AM To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>; IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org> Subject: Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs I too am looking forward to this list of problematic terms that the IETF should have blackballed. Lloyd Wood lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk<mailto:lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk> On Friday, September 21, 2018, 00:12, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca<mailto:paul@nohats.ca>> wrote: On Thu, 20 Sep 2018, lloyd.wood=40yahoo.co.uk@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40yahoo.co.uk@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > python has absolutely no problem favouring and promoting whitespace, which is racist as. > whitespace is so important it gets to come first in the queue on the line. because it's white. Since I use white text on a black screen, it is misnamed anyway! It's blackspace for me! We should call it blancspace obviously. I also remember they had excellent coffee at IETF 95 Buenos Aires at a place called Negro and it felt like a weird name to me until I learned some more Spanish :P Joking aside, Niels does bring a valid point, and it would be nice if we got some guidelines for avoiding these existing known words, and prevent us from creating new problematic ones.
- 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