The recent IETF debate on "inclusive language" ended with the IESG
statement published on May 11, 2022. Rather than engaging in a search
for problematic locutions and proposed replacement, the IESG deferred to
the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). I think
that decision was good, because most IETF participants are not experts
in the English language, and also because there is advantage in keeping
standard vocabulary across the industry. This kind of standard is more
friendly to participants with English as a second language. Suppose the
alternative, in which for example the IETF, the IEEE, the ITU and ANSI
would each develop their alternate formula for "man in the middle", and
foreign participants would have to somehow guess that all of these mean
the same thing. The debate might have been tense but I think that the
final decision was sound, and I see no big urgency to repeat the exercise.
-- Christian Huitema
On 10/12/2022 10:22 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Toerless Eckert wrote:
Since the last last time you mention, AFAIK, there has been a lot
more focus
on language in the IETF including inclusive language which made every
RFC author
more involved in considerations about language by being called out on
it by
RFC editor.
As for difficulties with inclusive language, see, for example:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/szfzLAbV9EmQ7kmz3HGfaLkLhT0/
As such, insisting on inclusive language with your own idea
on "inclusive" is rather a problem to be corrected, not a
good practice to be followed, I think.
Likewise we have BCP 83 PR action going on.
The following statement in rfc9245 (part of BCP 83)
Uncivil commentary, regardless of the general subject, per
the IETF Note Well [NOTE-WELL]
and the following statement in [NOTE-WELL]
As a participant or attendee, you agree to work respectfully
with other participants;
certainly prohibit personal attacks but not beyond, which means
nothing has changed for decades.
Masataka Ohta
