On 01-Aug-20 02:21, Eliot Lear wrote:
...
> I think we’re talking about two different things- how we speak on list, and what goes into our drafts and RFCs. I’m suggesting general guidance to working groups as a BCP (no MUSTs but guidance), and just use the existing process to avoid terminology that one might expect to be offensive.
>
> At the same time, let’s seek more guidance about all of this from experts and develop a real decision framework that is based on firm ground, as it were. Once we get that we iterate.
Yes, but our source of expertise related to writing and publishing is surely already clear: the RFC Editor service. I am at a loss to understand why we're discussing this as an IETF issue alone. So I don't think a BCP is called for, but guidance from the RFC Editor, applying to all RFC streams. The vehicle for that exists: the RFC Editor style guide. It needs a new chapter.
I'm very happy with the IESG stating that IETF documents should avoid oppressive or exclusionary language. But I believe that we should go forward by requesting the RFC Editor to provide guidance and possibly tools to achieve this. Since all RFCs start as I-Ds, the guidance and tools would obviously apply to I-Ds as well as RFCs.
Regards
Brian
