IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 29 July 2020 12:12 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir.ietf@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 C783C3A0A53; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 05:12:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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] 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 LsODg-Ls11OE; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 05:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x335.google.com (mail-wm1-x335.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::335]) (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 1D5C03A09F1; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 05:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x335.google.com with SMTP id 184so2727387wmb.0; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 05:12:40 -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=yS+3RqV0zP4pX3mmUR9BZmBdmNE3iFr98b8/RBFeY70=; b=RGWPJr11T7p0vLMnXe94iVbeCxiTvMDJ8OGvVps2y02lqa5SBPcmpJLgMnm8klwQUk OCBergejYbdoaPxOpLQsPHTMZiJu6lR+cDKrq3VtkJb5d9UVygIBecls5CVcIegUEYlv IvkXFnRZ0ruNNNyG+JoULvD0/NJymruTsKru+vommHwOjzbVGhCA4iLzrOs8ZsFauJmM KgKe0ypO6gaATmQ12N9jGiirc89nnF8DjSrwigrU8yeLDgQEMQW64LrhU9JMNxcSNzlL X9L/Zg29aRUzyICHNxYNbivx2jw+HYk5knnRCaLskWnlQUMRSVewxqSkywEIbZRR7zbO +glQ==
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=yS+3RqV0zP4pX3mmUR9BZmBdmNE3iFr98b8/RBFeY70=; b=qgUlkBdwwPyRbRw1z1PVoaRcUbKpzEjSRaReoHcr5SkdLDqTxE9XKu3bp1eQoShgdJ Z4TLNfOUkFvvjbz8vJCvk8WWuTQy9+Ex4Usy1iqcNEcOT5bYXpAzqZDCwFReGPkNytMZ IsdCjE0puRZLol1UYlZM/US8DHHAfHMqFrp996wILiKooryh9zPv40UnL1Zm8fpS9fJI oDfLaYKahnMQi0Qc4oSgOOOoPcBbVqeVwVzVcCWgL8d2LdgeUJLGN74RnanjwzYS3AdZ Ssr89ikszMOgSVFSp4QQBUsNao4Z9pXbwComDla1829FMBY6BrOs23wEd4+kBcZo3q5i jw4w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532On1J4leUlwshgQr+y6PwUBvYz2jYCc/pUp5dM0MsOMDd3Xqar rn2JrSBNftx+zYDSqQeemqc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx+eZuXbavB8VluJkPdDQVOI0b2dgCLMacJIqHV2svf2PoqPeDW6FGeVBoCRXepOQbocpFabg==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:6408:: with SMTP id y8mr8260135wmb.52.1596024759442; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 05:12:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.17] ([46.120.57.147]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r16sm6615011wrr.13.2020.07.29.05.12.37 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 29 Jul 2020 05:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
Subject: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
From: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <29896C76-F631-4E5A-9F42-CB9CEA08ABF8@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 15:12:36 +0300
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, IETF Best Practices <ietf@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A8BEC254-971F-4A2D-A028-BF7E8F3BCD82@gmail.com>
References: <933ce8b4-78a5-76bf-55c3-7c5694faffbb@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <267BCA35-3A3F-440B-9F5F-2C818D5AE71A@icloud.com> <e7956fd8-2639-3df6-9539-0dd483cafa25@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <34CF64D6-10F3-4F45-B592-FA14C911DB0B@chopps.org> <c18fc227-7da0-1487-a2ae-74de1ac73759@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <CALaySJ+UbSP5nJungBae053q7W_VQ-8yx2pr+KP6S+G81_1_VA@mail.gmail.com> <29896C76-F631-4E5A-9F42-CB9CEA08ABF8@gmail.com>
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/dDOHSgCfnThid83CfClh665cpO0>
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: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 12:12:45 -0000


> On 29 Jul 2020, at 13:25, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I would let authors express their thoughts as they think best, and leave the decision of what words to rephrase with the RFC Editors.

I don’t think that is reasonable. The RFC editors may fix some sentence of explanatory text that is using some phrase that is loaded with baggage. 

But an importnat part of a document is the terminology that it defines. If a document defines something that is a “controller” or a “master” and something else that is a “function” or a “slave” or a “supplicant”, then this terminology is later going to be used in code, in product documentation, even in future university courses. it’s not reasonalbe to expect the editor to come up with a different terminology.

Drafts should arrive at the RFC editor being mostly ready for publication. Changing terminology should send a document back to the WG.

Yoav

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email