IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 24 July 2020 02:34 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 233773A0803 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 19:34:25 -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, NICE_REPLY_A=-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 wjajpH_77baD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 19:34:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x62d.google.com (mail-pl1-x62d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62d]) (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 E37D63A0029 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 19:34:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62d.google.com with SMTP id t6so3654793plo.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 19:34:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:cc:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=orzCKS3fQ8QSxOrthsG1Zrv2qZzm6+2IH8HN3TAkbXU=; b=i7GT/lPpgVKVHJNbwbpIiLDBqNlTpbjIQWqrEGB6cTm2JTb1K5Mt57UYX1/msKi1Bh kbAp9g0PrmzFV1GKEEWepf3aEbyvF53xbbKreL/yvRDoO0NuxsYTffJXMWoluk+iuqfS 6MGJoP5Z8/LIVxHNoL1uAAbprKzCqMIQb1si387r44qQkgHDy+Lmga7sTKvpyOlEt8mL LfOeDBpqqxDqipCrObowu8J9nkmu0+MqLHq47B0PMsJCpQktTFzCg5tO/A6IOI5k5Aj1 fp6DgXpGHAK7bwXM/Fa+Qd34lnv8GV7KfsHmQ8a2TxKTT8NUA5quyOPn9IqoSwFypxcD P+Uw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:cc:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=orzCKS3fQ8QSxOrthsG1Zrv2qZzm6+2IH8HN3TAkbXU=; b=TF10L12HFoRuGR+0zX5plBU6hrCNhOWsTvKIPK1n7EKEWf8BiHy/D0i7TXAPLMcR2F PqEuzgO7/L9eOBRz4pFWK9o84tAZALVjKbrIO4ef2A+E7cLUMpgefDtiaTyNe4Ua4aMb u3VBSwHCMVaTheWi3z6vtkc1RSI9DfeYWfIO7yMg0EljxnZj4jgXwTlsE8GkHMWAWDuL htjMjXbnXRz+uveglRrp3B9eNYCjJnBBJHfj8Ssztl9Vxw2ro5H/8FQ2+VS2v3F64HiJ VRHwieGEPW7E1moKJShw1xplwee5DS+mmXqRZijpWTGhh4l+OWgr+DG/aG2v8038Xt+g yDlg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533wPYCbmVC6AHwfF8EMKyvp4P8P24wpHlwYDT/sXm4oywhtzgG9 4w3FZbg6V4zvLKgVAH+WcgRvvWTk
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyVnHPjlsE9gec9Pd/mj8dA4UHuJjFyG5mgGqVrew6zC8KeUnodYgu1WXWDtpZORx5EJuItTQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:158f:: with SMTP id m15mr3141676pja.93.1595558063057; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 19:34:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.139.192]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n63sm4260545pfd.209.2020.07.23.19.34.21 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Jul 2020 19:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
References: <159552214576.23902.6025318815034036362@ietfa.amsl.com> <D208C070-48ED-4878-AB2E-4671C2AC649A@gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Message-ID: <2c018854-bfc1-e014-6e5d-2ed799a6a602@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 14:34:18 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D208C070-48ED-4878-AB2E-4671C2AC649A@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/mHT8xgNlwtSaL3qOlLM4A8A9qPQ>
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: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 02:34:25 -0000

On 24-Jul-20 07:15, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> What approach should be used when the terms master/slave are used in third party specifications?
> 
> For example when referring to the IEEE 1588 Best Master Clock Algorithm?

Since you ask, the answer seems obvious: its name is "Master Clock" so there's nothing else you can call it. "Master" on its own is here to stay, anyway; in some contexts the proposed alternatives (like "main") simply don't work. That's why most of the advice to authors cannot be binary; we can't resolve this just with a blocklist approach.

While I'm here: it will be very unfortunate if the same guidelines are not followed by all the RFC Streams. Either this debate moves to an rfc-editor.org list as Mike suggests, or we handle it like IPR rules: the other streams watch the IETF's debate and then adopt and adapt the IETF's eventual guidelines.

    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email