On 24-Jul-20 07:15, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> What approach should be used when the terms master/slave are used in third party specifications?
>
> For example when referring to the IEEE 1588 Best Master Clock Algorithm?
Since you ask, the answer seems obvious: its name is "Master Clock" so there's nothing else you can call it. "Master" on its own is here to stay, anyway; in some contexts the proposed alternatives (like "main") simply don't work. That's why most of the advice to authors cannot be binary; we can't resolve this just with a blocklist approach.
While I'm here: it will be very unfortunate if the same guidelines are not followed by all the RFC Streams. Either this debate moves to an rfc-editor.org list as Mike suggests, or we handle it like IPR rules: the other streams watch the IETF's debate and then adopt and adapt the IETF's eventual guidelines.
Brian
