On 28/07/2020 17:00, Nico Williams wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 09:35:45AM -0700, The IESG wrote:
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-knodel-terminology/
I'm surprised not to find there anything like a survey of RFCs, current
I-Ds, and maybe even expired I-Ds, of problematic language. Or any
analysis of the prevalence of problematic language and trends in its
use. Did we use to have a problem that we now no longer have? Do we
still have a problem? Is it getting better or worse?
Can we ask the author, and/or maybe the RPC, to perform such a survey?
(The RPC presumably would only survey RFCs, not I-Ds.)
It would be quite useful to have such a survey.
Nico
Uplist you will find an e-mail from me about blacklist which showed that
in my own local (statistically unsound) filestore of RFC and I-D the use
has much declined compared to 10 years ago. I think that that is one
term that we have informally recognised as unsuitable and acted upon
without any need for an IESG statement. (I was responding erroneously
to a post that was about black magic that I thought was about blacklist
from Rich Salz).
At a tangent, I keep looking to see if my posts have got through the
rules imposed by my ESP; if I ever refer to the LSR routing protocol
that is not OSPF by its usual abbreviation, then my post is .. well,
disappears without trace. You can guess what word I was about to use:-)
Tom Petch
Nico
