If I had to state a position, it would be that our interest as engineers is in using clear language. Often, this means established language whose domain-specific meanings remain static as definitions in different domains drift over time. Authors can make what word choices they like to achieve clarity, leaving room for individuals to use language they find less loaded or overloaded or baggage-carrying. Folks who want to help them are welcome but the IETF has no interest in legislating language that will degrade clarity.
Kyle
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 5:26 AM Niels ten Oever <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi all,
On the hrpc-list [0] there has been an intense conversation which was
spurred by the news that the Python community removed Master/Slave
terminology from its programming language [1].
In the discussion that followed it was remarked that in RFCs terms like
Master/Slave, blacklist/whitelist, man-in-middle, and other terminology
that is offensive to some people and groups is quite common.
This is not a discussion that can be resolved in hrpc, but rather should
be dealt with in the IETF community (because hrpc doesn't make policy
for terminology in the IETF), which is why I am posting this here.
If people find the discussion worthwhile, we might also be just in time
to request a BoF on this topic.
Looking forward to discuss.
Best,
Niels
[0] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hrpc/
[1]
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8x7akv/masterslave-terminology-was-removed-from-python-programming-language
--
Niels ten Oever
Researcher and PhD Candidate
Datactive Research Group
University of Amsterdam
PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488
643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3
