I'd suggest a different approach, one based on tone. I am of an opinion similar to some comments made in this discussion, that some people's skin is too thin, drawing offense where neither offense nor offensiveness is intended or imagined. The fact that a controller that controls other controllers is called a "master" is not inaccurate, as draft-knodel suggests; it is an accurate description of the control relationship. The usage doesn't condone the behavior of the ancient Egyptians with respect to Hebrew slaves, or Hammurabi's laws (http://www.thenagain.info/Classes/Sources/Hammurabi-Slavery.html), or the behavior of certain middle-eastern countries that have until very recently have held slaves (https://www.wya.net/op-ed/slavery-in-the-middle-east/), or the US/UK treatment of blacks in 1600-1865.It doesn't condone the treatment of black slaves in Brazil either, who as a fraction of the marketplace outnumbered US/UK slaves 10:1, I understand. It describes the relationship between a controller-of-controllers and the controllers controlled, which is simply a design fact. What I would suggest is that reviewers look at tone of writing. If someone is making KKK-ish comments, they're out of line and the point should be made. > On Aug 8, 2020, at 7:42 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > While full coordiantion probably needs something akin to RSE involvement, it seems to me that it would be a useful step if the IETF could at least figure out how to create a working list along the lines of what Joe Touch posted. (Here are some words. Here are some other words that you could / should / might / ... consider using in place of them.) > > Having such a list with some resemblance of IETF rough consensus that following it is a good idea would help us move forward without getting bogged down in either "whose job is a formal decision?" or "when will there be an RSE?". > > Such a list would, it seems to me, help genart reviewers at least keep the question in mind. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 8/8/2020 10:12 PM, John C Klensin wrote: >> --On Saturday, August 8, 2020 13:52 -0400 Michael StJohns >> <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Exactly. This affects more than just the IETF, and any >>> result would have a stronger impact if agreed to by more than >>> just the IETF. (To avoid doubt, I agree this is an RSE task). >>> >>> On 8/8/2020 5:00 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: >>>> I disagree with this approach. >>>> >>>> We should ask the RFC Series Editor to consult international >>>> experts on technical language and the editors of other major >>>> standards such as IEEE, ETSI and ITU and report back to us >>>> with a recommendation. >> Agreed, but with two suggestions/provisos (both derived from >> comments made by others): >> (1) Unless we want to push the IETF toward a relapse in which we >> are a US-based body with some "foreigners" allowed to >> participate, whatever mechanisms are developed need to be >> sensitive to inappropriate terminology in other languages, >> whether natively there, plausible translations, or >> transliterations. We don't need to boil all oceans all at once, >> but we have to start with the understanding that US English is >> not the only language or culture when inappropriate language >> occurs. >> (2) While I agree that this should be an RSE task, I think we >> need to remember that we don't have an RSE. While it might be >> possible to ask John to start the research project (although >> that is pushing the boundaries of what he signed up for) he >> doesn't have, and it might be problematic to give him, the >> authority to start making decisions in this space. We should >> also note that one reading of the trends in the RFC Futures >> discussion (not, obviously, the only reading) is that we don't >> really need an RSE, especially an RSE with any authority. If >> that was actually the trend in that area, then assigning this >> type of responsibility to the RSE might be something of a >> contradiction. >> john >
