On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 4:57 PM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 06-Jun-22 23:56, Keith Moore wrote: > > On 6/6/22 04:20, tom petch wrote: > > > >> I saw an apology for the use of '...considered harmful' recently and > >> was suprised that that phrase was .. well considered harmful > > > > This makes me wonder: how is making a reference to a letter that's > > rather famous in Computer Science history any different that referring > > to any established technical term or concept? Granted not absolutely > > everyone will have heard of that letter, but is it really hostile to > > newcomers to use well-established language of the subject domain that we > > work in when that language isn't, say, sexist or racist? Is > it hostile > > to newcomers to refer to the end-to-end principle? > > I suspect that, as always, context is everything. If somebody had written > a draft "6to4 considered harmful" some years ago, I don't think that > Keith or I would have been upset. (If you don't get that, see RFC 3056.) > But if they had written a draft "Carpenter and Moore considered harmful" > we would have been quite angry. Somewhere in between is "Carpenter and Moore's > work considered harmful" - I'm really not sure how I would have reacted to that. I am the author of RFC 3675 ".sex Considered Harmful". Thanks, Donald > As a matter of fact that work was subject to a lot of criticism, as was its > extension by RFC 3068, but I don't recall a single ad hominem comment. > > We can be critical without being rude. > > Brian
