On 9/20/18 1:48 PM, Michal Krsek wrote:
Hello,
I understand those words may be inappropriate in some contexts, but
they are fine in other contexts.
Not touching the IT area, how we teach history?
Presently? In most of the World? By rewriting it. So let's not even go
there and not use that as a gold standard.
I'd say - our master/slave act means something else than enslaving
people, man-in-the-middle is a system not a male person, debugging
means something else than disinfection and so on.
We do have our jargon for long time and I'm not sure if it is a clever
idea to start building a Tower of Babel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel .
+1. I propose we keep things as is.
They are not anywhere as offensive as some other IT terminology like for
example using "grooming" to describe the process of evaluating current
bugs and issues. And let's not even start on what routing means in some
parts of the English speaking world.
A.
Michal
On 20/09/2018 14:15, Roberta Maglione (robmgl) wrote:
I agree with the comments made below: in my opinion there is nothing
wrong in using terms like master/slave, white/black lists, man-in the
middle, etc.
In the context of IETF we are using them as part of technical
discussions: if you don’t take them out of the context in my opinion
there is nothing wrong with these words.
Thanks
Roberta
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Petr Špacek
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2018 13:29
To: ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
On 20/09/2018 13:25, Stewart Bryant wrote:
The problem with the many proposed alternative versions of
Master/Slave that I have seen over the years, is that they fail to
express the technical importance of the absolute relationship
between the two entities.
The term master/slave is used when it is technically required that
the instruction is executed without equivocation. Indeed in
hardware-land, dithering over what to do (metastability) is so
catastrophic that many technical measures need to be taken to avoid it.
If all the master-slave flip-flops in the Internet were replaced
with do-it-if-I-feel-like-it flip-flops, we would not have an Internet.
In RFC-land we are mirroring the long-standing language of the
hardware designers, and having a common terminology that transcends
all aspects of logic design seems to me to be a net benefit to the
internet as a whole.
Yes, we always need to take context into account!
I fully agree with with Stewart and Riccardo (previous reply) on this.
