IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Thu, 20 September 2018 18:27 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
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 8F78B130DD9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 11:27:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnot.net header.b=wI4LManD; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=JpqduifZ
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 Ga-cOybpTEkW for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 11:27:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA98F130DEE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 11:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98C1B21F34; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 14:27:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 20 Sep 2018 14:27:20 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=44fREdh9dgMGzTRK2Ubjq+a2edvRw EwwSpE5/hKvo4E=; b=wI4LManDIiHH/+v/9kcgD5FsxRG0I2r9s65hoa89KYpQZ 3BWJuuWWS0+6r2ihoNKaB1Xf3coWgFiqDoGa7MxNB1Jbhix13Lov1Jj6YmmEhFoX gHWxgLdo6JDjr8qCZ2+LqmJqFPbLr9mRkjUJMubb/K/g27vIzHQIF/CvH3s6cKhq CHdn4HeLKnwlisIowLA0uzHkqSkq+MVXExorKJCF58Ko/wavoTkMQDaWS2r5onNl raZrsrkbY9YhbNBD+h/o7/Rb3IkmH4cqjxGa5q4Ll2fXp+oI084CbW2BTUlaPEgs YqGWp+0Oyo2j7Qr8u8a0PTM+MGIDUjpYESEouSPtQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=44fREd h9dgMGzTRK2Ubjq+a2edvRwEwwSpE5/hKvo4E=; b=JpqduifZjagg/KRYtxvAkY pgI51E6MAFzrgd29LFwcVuXNdWg5IcafGl3EEEy9RCakqYKUzVjuMqLj3Kszg4mO Dtd7QuF3SxtFLHjrFo3e2oCm5OEx4JdIA/tMWNXhhzsrSUS9xyeTKP5CabCij6lO ylr8mJEkREA4GC5xVOyKaxI2yO6oYd7jAmgVlXLnjH4uoewc1c7pZd+5r1TAKKev UsrYKAhD+kxKXU4ErMIqFO5d8a1Vf5Q4QGOjIB4tMTMb0F7Z/0nn9uBjHa++3gXw dFRo/9LEnRP/yNXOVQ702zlZ4Sr+8yRUl8Du+Ea6NuyVgmWQQG6HvJ977P4z/sDw ==
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:huajW7e0o0IenkOdn-0gnHStlA92cSRAhCHFRsezFkHKxsHGk83B4w> <xmx:huajW6iNIrB2UXgwkfeUSX3tcF29mLS2CMOaaGacaUKEnLFXnn9kSw> <xmx:huajW8iprJp79Dm25JGe8MxKoVFFcDvMueMM_ZTV2wnE7XUqvVt8xA> <xmx:huajW2pZfTQUbfwXSW58sxNx0BYHISk8BxIK0PwAAkzdbYDvTW1_aw> <xmx:huajWyz4XfXoCXayGNtC7mvvyctRyzEIQb7hanu1B-MPBJrlo5WVpg> <xmx:iOajW7FItRTtR0O-edunI1nhgOCYWaiovEg8rmn9x9IaGU1mNwbdYA>
X-ME-Sender: <xms:huajWzO05f9rCtSZFljo4HmlyK6MN_y0BtgU1L87tRTa61fTcTHn4Q>
Received: from [10.26.179.47] (nat-216-240-30-23.netapp.com [216.240.30.23]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 6BF8E102DD; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 14:27:18 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Subject: Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <DBA2C6BE-47BE-4264-9BF6-C0A4D1AF84A5@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 14:27:16 -0400
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1ABDFE95-C9E6-40AE-913A-0E4C62531F50@mnot.net>
References: <cafa1282-ae6a-93de-ea4a-d100af28d8b8@digitaldissidents.org> <CAKHUCzxL8xgn2D2W9G=Qk=AXzyw4mmcqPii6GKBSiByRyxbq+Q@mail.gmail.com> <c755471a7f744fdd958759c6c5001147@exchange02.office.nic.se> <20180920170939.GA68853@isc.org> <968547d5-7e96-5c31-69a3-20456baccf1a@comcast.net> <DBA2C6BE-47BE-4264-9BF6-C0A4D1AF84A5@rfc-editor.org>
To: Heather Flanagan <rse@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/yy-lb5x-sWt0e1e_SZKhVl1Fa9Q>
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: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 18:27:25 -0000


> On 20 Sep 2018, at 2:14 pm, Heather Flanagan <rse@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> 
> I can only imagine the possible discussions between the editors and authors, given the heated debates now over ‘simple’ terms like that versus which.
> 
> I’m glad the community is having this conversation, because any changes to the use of terms and language in an RFC must come from the community. I don’t think it can reasonably be imposed by the editors. Not unless we significantly change the relationship between the RFC Editor and the authors.

It obviously won't work as an adversarial relationship (e.g., the RFC editor "enforcing" a rule), and I don't think anyone has suggested that. 

Is it reasonable to mention this as something to think about when you're authoring / reviewing a draft, and have a discussion as adults if someone thinks a term might have such an issue?

If not, why? Noticing potential issues and discussing their resolution seems pretty bread-and-butter around here IME.

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email