Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

I also find the stereotyping of names in signalling terminology highly
offensive and non-inclusive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_and_Bob

Why are only Alice and Bob so chatty to always have the most conversations ? 
Won't Carol get depressions from always being a third rail ? Will your kids
ever get jobs if you name them Craig, Mallory, Eve or Heidi ?  And so on.
These SIP heads are ruining the life of our kids!

*sigh*

Keep your virtue signalling out of my language!

--
Toerless

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 11:25:58AM +0200, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On the hrpc-list [0] there has been an intense conversation which was
> spurred by the news that the Python community removed Master/Slave
> terminology from its programming language [1].
> 
> In the discussion that followed it was remarked that in RFCs terms like
> Master/Slave, blacklist/whitelist, man-in-middle, and other terminology
> that is offensive to some people and groups is quite common.
> 
> This is not a discussion that can be resolved in hrpc, but rather should
> be dealt with in the IETF community (because hrpc doesn't make policy
> for terminology in the IETF), which is why I am posting this here.
> 
> If people find the discussion worthwhile, we might also be just in time
> to request a BoF on this topic.
> 
> Looking forward to discuss.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Niels
> 
> 
> [0] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hrpc/
> [1]
> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8x7akv/masterslave-terminology-was-removed-from-python-programming-language
> 
> 
> -- 
> Niels ten Oever
> Researcher and PhD Candidate
> Datactive Research Group
> University of Amsterdam
> 
> PGP fingerprint	   2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488
>                    643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3