Re: [Terminology] TERM & NISTIR 8366

The more I think about this, the better it looks. The only caveat is that a
future administration might be regressive.

While this ties us to the US govt on this, we use English as our working
language and produce English documents. The US is the second largest
English speaking country and the most diverse.

IETF has limited resources to commit to this, the US state dept has an
entire protocol department.

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 6:15 AM Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> thank you all for the feedback over the last few days.
>
> It seems like we have broad consensus to refer to NISTIR 8366 (
> https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8366) to provide guidance to IETF
> contributors on using inclusive terminology, in lieu of documenting our own
> guidance.
>
> I'm therefore planning to do the following:
>
> (1) abandon the chartering of the proposed TERM WG
>
> (2) suggest to the IESG to recommend NISTIR 8366 as guidance
>     to contributors to the IETF
>
> (3) suggest to the RFC Editor to recommend NISTIR 8366 as guidance
>     to authors of I-Ds and RFCs
>
> Thanks,
> Lars Eggert
> IETF Chair
>
> --
> Terminology mailing list
> Terminology@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/terminology
>