I think there are two different things under discussion: 1) language used in our documents, and 2) language used in our discussions, both online and off. draft-knodel is very clear that it's the former that's in scope, stating in the abstract: This document argues for moving away from specific language conventions used by RFC authors and RFC Editors in order to encourage inclusive terminology in the ongoing RFC series. I am not overly concerned about colloquialisms making it through working group last call, let alone through the RFC Editor process. So, while whether or not "folks" and similar are going to be alienating is an interesting and likely worthwhile discussion to have, it's outside the scope of this particular document. Melinda [on reread, aside from other issues draft-knodel is a little squishy about whether it's arguing for change or specifying those changes, which is probably a minor point but wouldn't be much effort to clarify] -- Melinda Shore melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx Software longa, hardware brevis
