The IETF is already applying these standards to new documents.
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-knodel-terminology-07.txt
At some point, I'd expect that someone with the time and energy will produce a
single document that updates all the existing documents using the updated
terminology. At least that would be my preference since doing BIS versions of
all these documents is not desirable unless this is being done for other
purposes. For example, it would not make sense to do an RFC 2328 BIS unless we
were going to also correct all the Errata and go through a full review cycle.
Thanks,
Acee
On 11/16/21, 3:55 PM, "Lsr on behalf of Mike Fox" <lsr-boun...@ietf.org on
behalf of mj...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
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.
Thank you,
Mike
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBM Enterprise Network Solutions Architecture & Design
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research Triangle Park, NC USA
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
