In article <cafa1282-ae6a-93de-ea4a-d100af28d8b8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> you write: >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. If this is really the best that HRPC can do, I would suggest that it's time for the IRTF to consider whether to shut it down. When I've gone to HRPC sessions, I have heard endless papers about more or less plausible threats to freedom of expression or to anonymous speech (which is not the same thing.) More than once I have stood up at HRPC sessions and noted that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has thirty articles, and none of the discussion deals with more than two of them. The chairs have assured me that they are equally interested in the other rights, but the evidence of that is pretty thin. What about article 12, protection agaisnt attacks on honor and repuation? What is HRPC doing about trolling and other online attacks? Or article 17, nobody shall be arbitrariy deprived of his property? What is HRPC doing to keep our protocols from being used to enable phishing and other online theft? Or article 23, the right to rest and leisure? What is HRPC doing to keep our protocols from being used to put people on a 24 hour electronic leash? Instead, we get this stuff. Even if you think that the language in our RFCs is problematic, which for the most part I don't, I am confident that no RFC has ever enslaved anyone, nor put anyone on a secret list that kept them from working (the actual meaning of blacklist for people who know their history.) There are real human rights problems that HRPC could engage with, but don't. They need to make up their mind whether they're serious. R's, John
