Hi Alvaro,
On 11/16/21, 4:46 PM, "Alvaro Retana" <[email protected]> wrote:
On November 16, 2021 at 4:10:16 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:
Hi!
> The IETF is already applying these standards to new documents.
The better reference to what the IETF is doing is this one:
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/on-inclusive-language/
Thanks - I didn't look in the right place for this...
> 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.
I agree on your point about rfc2328bis.
OTOH, I don't think that a mass update would work as expected simply
because the terminology may not be used within the same context in all
cases, so a common replacement may not always make sense.
For the case that Mike points at, I think we could "simply" publish a
document that Updates rfc2328 and explains what the new terminology
should be -- assuming the WG is ok with it. I would think that
something like primary/secondary or leader/follower could work.
Agree - leader/follower would be better in this context but I didn't see it in
the Knodel draft. Hopefully, this terminology is acceptable.
Thanks,
Acee
My 2c.
Alvaro.
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
