From: Lsr <[email protected]> on behalf of Mike Fox <[email protected]> Sent: 16 November 2021 20:53
Many companies in the industry including mine are undergoing initiatives to replace offensive terminology in IT. One of the targeted terms is master/slave, which is used in OSPF database exchange and the terms appear in various documentation and displays for our OSPF routing daemon. I'm still waiting on guidance on whether or not industry-standard terms get a pass, but it's not looking good. Has anyone else encountered this issue and if so how have you handled it? If I'm going to need to change to terminology that does not match the RFC I'd like to be consistent with what others are doing. <tp> Mike The IESG statement triggered a lengthy discussion on the main IETF list 23jul2020 which was shut down by the IETF Chair as unhelpful 11aug20. (There are references to the 'terminology' list but I do not know what went on there). The use of master and slave got quite an airing and the sense I got was that the referenced documents, of which there are several from several sources, do not address the issue of a controlling and controlled entity as is common in electronics, protocols and engineering in general. There might have been some progress in the past year but I see no evidence thereof. Equally, my sense was that there was no consensus in support of taking draft-knodel as a way forward, political pressure perhaps, but not IETF consensus. Tom Petch Thank you, Mike ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- IBM Enterprise Network Solutions Architecture & Design ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Research Triangle Park, NC USA _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
