Hi, Ted,
On 23/7/20 15:20, Ted Hardie wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 11:08 AM Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
On 7/23/2020 1:54 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
Howdy,
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 10:36 AM Michael StJohns
<mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
[....]
Hi -
I'm actually surprised that you think its a good idea to do this on
a stream basis rather than on a community basis. Regardless, the
draft cited is pretty clear that it wants to add constraints to the
RFC process:
Just above the text you cite is this:
Authors SHOULD: * Replace the excluding term "master-slave" with more
accurate alternatives, for instance from the list of Section 3.1. *
Replace the excluding term "blacklist-whitelist" with more accurate
alternative, for instance from the list of suggested alternatives at
Section 3.2. * Reflect on their use of metaphors generally * Use the
neutral "they" as the singular pronoun, and * Consider changing
existing exclusive language in current (reference) implementations
[socketwench] * Consult the style sheet maintained by the RFC editor.
Getting the cultural shift to this reflection on the consideration means
that it will be rare that the RFC editor will need to offer
alternatives. It also means the language in I-Ds and working group
discussion will avoid the terms early, rather than expecting a
post-facto adjustment by an expert. A BCP covering the IETF practice
here seems to me a useful thing to do, even if all the other streams
come to very similar practices.
If this is to be applied, why not apply it to all IETF contributions,
rather than to some particular form of it?
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
