Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

On 26/07/2020 17:05, Salz, Rich wrote:
>>     And I'm saying it's not very sincere or effective to ban
>      "blacklist" leaving such terms as "black magic" and cultural
>      framework that darkness of black is somewhat evil which has
>      produced both terminologies.
>
> Does that term appear in RFCs?  If so, then yes, we should neutralize it.

Yes, the title, no less, of RFC5782 is 'DNS Blacklists and Whitelists'. 
  You will find it in the RFC-index and via the datatracker.
The term was discussed on the list, with blocklist considered as an 
alternative, but that was rejected.  The potential connotations of the 
term were discussed and there was a clear consensus that it was the most 
suitable term for the context.
(I still get requests from organisations wanting my business asking me 
to ensure that their e-mail address is on my whitelist).
It is history, it is how we were and it would be wrong to rewrite 
history; rather the focus should be on accepting how we were and using 
it to illuminate how we are and see what we can learn from the comparison.

A quick search suggests that I have seen the term used in I-D from SACM, 
NETCONF, I2NSF, ANIMA, APPSAWG, HTTPAUTH, INTAREA, SIPPING, V6OPS, DTNRG 
and MANET, some more recent than others; it also appears in the minutes 
of IETF102.

Of the RFC I cache, I see it in nine of which the most recent is RFC6589.

Tom Petch