IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Mon, 27 July 2020 12:35 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
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 413263A193D; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 05:35:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 8FDsLK_tUbKp; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 05:35:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x332.google.com (mail-wm1-x332.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::332]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 759573A193A; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 05:35:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x332.google.com with SMTP id g10so13313291wmc.1; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 05:35:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=hMfmSrAJS34KDqnzkRiKP2Lm0aflnS09hAC5RsKjeJw=; b=quY0o6t5X+ZR9YZjgDvVZVW7qg6lcy13SWcIHNh5Hh18/95daXRgJkXBZTh/g6Lzte dRVIq5J/v3Ek46U2duXTlN7w1rwfHkZ8T+tX030KRMXXJReRcW/SfbYWHvUJOcoCNPdZ CINdnUdvg0dHm7XgYiMf6iuebl5nPp8uHmuLSV/SrB2kJUznycROicqMUEjKShwragKJ gbh1j4bFnpf3hdWbXMKvBBgMnqnSrm7v2emQK4cCGoqXVeQuzUocHslKTvulNRjT/hTw AHIjgA/uvmbn2prpboKlKNkPc4FHXBQO72VKeb+g4m2DMjFbPLsbyfggBQErzKz6+Vrn y/Lg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=hMfmSrAJS34KDqnzkRiKP2Lm0aflnS09hAC5RsKjeJw=; b=M8tFBKB9HqbxduVm+JzxgtYLLb8Ky2r3/4i96WhM8YGYXaOxmx8RY19RPF33TdgKp/ 1KIjyXJpYNOKAm0r0Xl09glohN0CxGAC/1h9t8JK5LvXllkbDGoswUiwOEs2Wu8N+NAx DnasSzfMSrqfDoEgzzJ7kTbA7vhR2SyoozmQDuadbv4iNjm7P0F5rUHCo7n3XJQjbKxS KV5Wo6XLVxxTxCqwcw6a5G/4gjK4Dv1NjOgSRd/iBdxV8zPCutqzZowxZAQ5ot9J9nam 9GDLDCZl6BCc4V8PpsWmI9cExxTKDD8zIhMlwIqUrla1sz/xFUt5jRdxvikRB/Cvd1AM SUGw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533qhsZSeR2wjPVxnAVV09s+OVBh1sn/f7O8uQRz2vsRajay2bJJ q6xG9emkr1tJqHOHriTE/sY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyW8UcLACHevqMKo0JMmfoEkQBGrQqk9lUgFW/yVreALJ9qmK0UvCu9EVXIlUCVXafudr9wEA==
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c306:: with SMTP id k6mr12225584wmj.86.1595853353903; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 05:35:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from broadband.bt.com ([2a00:23a8:4140:0:7525:ea13:b017:982f]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g145sm26230655wmg.23.2020.07.27.05.35.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 27 Jul 2020 05:35:53 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Subject: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <E8744E54-084E-496F-9662-876E311FCEAD@strayalpha.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 13:35:47 +0100
Cc: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>, IETF list <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2290022C-77F4-4979-93E5-44D9AF377A0C@gmail.com>
References: <159552214576.23902.6025318815034036362@ietfa.amsl.com> <dc32abdd-d361-a81b-a61d-4f4f69443e22@si6networks.com> <6E23B161-6CA0-40D1-A37A-6F0F79A90EB2@strayalpha.com> <cc5ee354-8307-a8ab-bfe0-522dc593d43d@acm.org> <EBDE082B-5663-47A1-820E-EBAEC75A36DC@tzi.org> <30F40837-55D3-4504-8310-AD387B156408@ietf.org> <E8744E54-084E-496F-9662-876E311FCEAD@strayalpha.com>
To: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/dD3hxJI2m0jwk2T3pxslvPnYuDw>
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 12:35:58 -0000

Joe

I see how that properly describes the relative authority of the two components.

I always prefer to use a h/w flip-flop to visualise the behaviour.

I am fine with moving to a new name provided we captures the actual behaviour.

Stewart

> On 26 Jul 2020, at 22:49, Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jul 26, 2020, at 2:32 PM, Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org> wrote:
>> 
>> A question I can’t resolve by Googling - has anyone attempted to create entirely new words to represent the concepts that master or slave have been used to represent?  e.g. a word that means "authoritative source of data that has no dependency on another source" and has no other meaning?
> 
> Why aren’t either primary or authoritative vs. copy/secondary/replica sufficient?
> 
> Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email