IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Wed, 29 July 2020 15:36 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 B6E213A0BD9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 08:36:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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 (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.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 8j_sNAZ_RzgX for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 08:36:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lavender.maple.relay.mailchannels.net (lavender.maple.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.214.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5B073A0BD1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 08:36:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB147361A4B; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 15:36:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a39.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-12-26.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.12.26]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 46D29361E55; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 15:36:11 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a39.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.18.8); Wed, 29 Jul 2020 15:36:11 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Eight-Shelf: 3071879c378afd61_1596036971715_641515769
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1596036971715:795419580
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1596036971714
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a39.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a39.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05E1480638; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 08:36:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=MYC6GCy1/vyVI+ OfIILaPqAPTA8=; b=bD5qrTjSaP18T6jsx7R1SuYAC5ZYM7k+YM1XBEk2HFh+N8 SSkZ9YTN3b1YsJ/Op3shZYFU2lA7JV3DMLG0M9Ojfk/6fSAq9RNrL+pDf3wz8xpw y+dIhUzokdcVsn0hawcjEk7k2sNF/471v7piu7bAvXckBisPUefemFwJiOt1Q=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a39.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DEBBF80637; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 08:36:09 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 10:36:07 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a39
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language
Message-ID: <20200729153605.GL3100@localhost>
References: <159552214576.23902.6025318815034036362@ietfa.amsl.com> <20200728160033.GE3100@localhost> <20200729091153.GA26991@nic.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200729091153.GA26991@nic.fr>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK
X-VR-OUT-SCORE: -100
X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedrieeggdeludcutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfftffgtefojffquffvnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpeffhffvuffkfhggtggujggfsehttdertddtredvnecuhfhrohhmpefpihgtohcuhghilhhlihgrmhhsuceonhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepffdtkeethfeuteeviefgfeegjeetjedvhfehgfdvtdefueejheelgeeuhffghffgnecukfhppedvgedrvdekrddutdekrddukeefnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmohguvgepshhmthhppdhhvghloheplhhotggrlhhhohhsthdpihhnvghtpedvgedrvdekrddutdekrddukeefpdhrvghtuhhrnhdqphgrthhhpefpihgtohcuhghilhhlihgrmhhsuceonhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomheqpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepnhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomhdpnhhrtghpthhtohepnhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomh
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/uhw_EOdrr70oz89NGeWZGTq3wTA>
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 15:36:27 -0000

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:11:53AM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 11:00:35AM -0500,
>  Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote 
>  a message of 17 lines which said:
> > I'm surprised not to find there anything like a survey of RFCs,
> > current I-Ds, and maybe even expired I-Ds, of problematic
> > language. [...]  Can we ask the author, and/or maybe the RPC, to
> > perform such a survey?
> 
> It would require a definition of "problematic language", something
> that the discussion proved next to impossible. [...]

Sure, but Knodel clearly has an idea of what problematic language is and
made a proposal around it, therefore Knodel could have included (and yet
could include) a survey based on that idea.  I'm rather curious about
that.  By the the proposed definition, the one the IESG approves of, do
we even have a problem, has it been getting better naturally, or worse?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email