Re: [Privacy-pass] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-privacypass-protocol-14: (with COMMENT)

[Christopher Wood <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Lars. We addressed your nits in this PR:

   https://github.com/ietf-wg-privacypass/base-drafts/pull/490

Please see inline below a response to the inclusive language comment.

> On Sep 20, 2023, at 9:47 AM, Lars Eggert via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-privacypass-protocol-14
> 
> CC @larseggert
> 
> ## Comments
> 
> ### Inclusive language
> 
> Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
> guidance:
> 
> * Terms `blinded`, `blind`, `blind_inv`, `blinded_msg`, `blindrsa`,
>   `blindevaluate`, `blind_sig`, `blindsign`, and `blinded_element`;
>   alternatives might be `visually impaired`, `unmindful of`, `unconcerned
>   about`, `negligent of`, `unaware`, `uncomprehending`, `unaware`,
>   `uncritical`, `unthinking`, `hasty`, `blocked`, `opaque`

“Blind signature” is a term of art in the academic literature, and indeed the term used in the underlying CFRG draft:

   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-cfrg-rsa-blind-signatures/

We debated use of a different (more inclusive) term for the CFRG draft, but in the end concluded that it would cause more harm and confusion than it would help. Thankfully, the term “blind” seems to have been overcome in the literature by the term “oblivious” in new cryptographic protocols, like Oblivious PRFs and so on.

Best,
Chris