Re: AUTH48 and "Guidance for NIST Staff on Using Inclusive Language in Documentary Standards"

[Brian Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Right now, if anyone is stuck, there's a copy at
https://ceramics.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/NIST.IR_.8366.pdf

I agree that we need an alternative in a rational jurisdiction.

(via tiny screen & keyboard)
Regards,
        Brian Carpenter

On Wed, 4 Jun 2025, 22:27 Q Misell, <q=[e-mail]> wrote:

> Moin all,
>
> I currently have an RFC in the AUTH48 stage, and as part of this the RFC
> editor asks me to review my text for possible issues around inclusive and
> respectful language, or rather lack thereof.
> Unfortunately, the accepted reference document to check language against,
> and to provide guidance on the construction of inclusive text is NIST 8366
> "Guidance for NIST Staff on Using Inclusive Language in Documentary
> Standards". There is nothing wrong with the (former) contents of this
> document, rather that if one tries to access it nowaday they are presented
> with a 1 page PDF simply stating that "this paper has been withdrawn to
> comply with executive order (E.O.) 14151" - in essence, President Trump has
> such a gripe with DEI that we can no longer write inclusive RFCs.
>
> I recognise this situation is not anyone with the IETF community's fault -
> its a ludicrous situation to be placed in by the political whims of a
> wannabe authoritarian. But the problem exists, and we should *probably* do
> something about it. As a starting point, I suggest we adopt the joint
> inclusive language guidance of the ISO and the IEC [1]; as these are both
> well respected international standards organisations, this maintains the
> stated goal of adopting NIST 8366 - in that the language used in the IETF
> is standardised across industry [2].
>
> I am, of course, open to other suggestions about what to do about this
> situation; and I particularly encourage the IESG to put forward their
> suggestions to the community.
>
> For now, I will continue editing my RFC based on my understanding of
> inclusive language, and hope that I do not make any mistakes that a solid
> reference would've prevented.
>
> Q
>
> [1]:
> https://iec.ch/system/files/2024-09/iec_doc_topical_inclusive-terminology-guidance_fa_lr.pdf
> [2]:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-iesg-statement-on-inclusive-language-20210511/
> ------------------------------
>
> Any statements contained in this email are personal to the author and are
> not necessarily the statements of the company unless specifically stated.
> AS207960 Cyfyngedig, having a registered office at 13 Pen-y-lan Terrace,
> Caerdydd, Cymru, CF23 9EU, trading as Glauca Digital, is a company
> registered in Wales under № 12417574
> <https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12417574>,
> LEI 875500FXNCJPAPF3PD10. ICO register №: ZA782876
> <https://ico.org.uk/ESDWebPages/Entry/ZA782876>. UK VAT №: GB378323867.
> EU VAT №: EU372013983. Turkish VAT №: 0861333524. South Korean VAT №:
> 522-80-03080. AS207960 Ewrop OÜ, having a registered office at Lääne-Viru
> maakond, Tapa vald, Porkuni küla, Lossi tn 1, 46001, trading as Glauca
> Digital, is a company registered in Estonia under № 16755226. Estonian VAT
> №: EE102625532. Glauca Digital and the Glauca logo are registered
> trademarks in the UK, under № UK00003718474 and № UK00003718468,
> respectively.
>