Subject: [Gendispatch] The Various Terminology Drafts

From: Andrew Campling <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 15:34:15 +0000

Having looked at the current verious of the three drafts focused on terminology, my thoughts in advance of the working group virtual meetings are as follows:

*       Draft-gondwana-effective-terminology-01 seems to be the most promising starting point for a document that could usefully be dispatched, Draft-knodel-terminology-04.txt the least so, with Draft-moore-exclusionary-language in between the other two.
*       Draft-gondwana-effective-terminology-01 Is the only ptoposal that looks more broadly than a consideration of exclusionary language, which I believe is helpful and why I belivee it merits consideration for dispatch; Draft-knodel-terminology-04.txt seems to me to be far too narrowly focused, citing principally US-centric, English language considerations, and only a small number at that, hence why I believe it is unsuitable.
*       As an aside, I note that both the Moore and Knodel drafts suggest that the RFC Editor maintains a role in identifying and giving guidance on exclusionary language but neither go on to suggest how the RFC Editor might determine what terms might be deemed to be inappropriate.  Barbara Stark put forward an idea on the IETF mailing list (see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/DFstwzLlxCwt5aODAJdDpoQMY0s/)  which might be a helpful starting point and would have the benefit of community involvement.  This could be a useful way forward for recommendation 4.4 in the Gondwana Draft.
*       As a second aside, I note that the Moore draft has some specific recommendations which could usefully be added to the Gondwana draft to strengthen the latter document.

No doubt others will have different views, I look forward to our discussoins during the virtual meetings and on the list.

Andrew

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 12:28:13 -0500

On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 03:34:15PM +0000, Andrew Campling wrote:
> Having looked at the current verious of the three drafts focused on
> terminology, my thoughts in advance of the working group virtual
> meetings are as follows:

[replying slightly out of order]

> * Draft-gondwana-effective-terminology-01 Is the only ptoposal that
>   looks more broadly than a consideration of exclusionary language,
>   which I believe is helpful and why I belivee it merits consideration
>   for dispatch; Draft-knodel-terminology-04.txt seems to me to be far
>   too narrowly focused, citing principally US-centric, English
>   language considerations, and only a small number at that, hence why
>   I believe it is unsuitable.

I'm happy to see publication of any and even all of these as
Informational (not least because only the IESG could stop that, and the
IESG surely wouldn't), and eventually for one of them to advance to BCP.
That seems like a very reasonable position.  Publication as Information
is essentially what I've meant in the past by "no prior restraint"
(which, for the benfit of our non-American participants, is a legal term
of art in the U.S.).

Even without publication of any of these, we can be certain that
"master/slave" -for example- will never again be allowed in RFCs simply
by social pressure and convention.  I.e., no action is actually required
to achieve the desired effect.

> * As an aside, I note that both the Moore and Knodel drafts suggest
>   that the RFC Editor maintains a role in identifying and giving
>   guidance on exclusionary language but neither go on to suggest how
>   the RFC Editor might determine what terms might be deemed to be
>   inappropriate.  [...]

That might be because there is no consensus on methodology for doing
that.  We have some scholarship of varying quality about the subject,
but not any real evidence for the proposition that certain terms are
exclusionary -- actually establishing that with some certainty would
require hard work.  There is 'critical theory', for example, but that's
not the only theory we might find useful.  A complete survey of theories
and methodologies will take time to collate, and actual surveys of
people and statistical analysis will also take time to collect and
perform.  Academic research of this type does not get done within our
likely time constraints (approx. two months now?).

> * Draft-gondwana-effective-terminology-01 seems to be the most
>   promising starting point for a document that could usefully be
>   dispatched, Draft-knodel-terminology-04.txt the least so, with
>   Draft-moore-exclusionary-language in between the other two.

draft-knodel-terminology-04 essentially says the community is full of
racists -a disqualifying ad hominem-:

|  There is harm in protracted discussion about the validity IETF
|  participants and their experiences with exclusionary terminology.

Perhaps there is harm in protracted discussion of anything, but claiming
that there is about just this one particular topic is just so much a
"shut up!" argument.

|  The racism in the community that has been surfaced as a result of
|  this larger debate among technologists pushed away participants and

Perhaps Ms. Knodel might like to name names.  Though she might want to
consult a lawyer first, as those she names might be able to sue her for
slander (if named on list) or libel (if named in an I-D).

I myself have shied away from "master/slave" in my documents for
decades, and I use "local policy" instead of any *list in my IETF
documents.  I will continue to not use those terms even if we should end
up not publishing any documents on the matter.  But perhaps Knodel means
simply objecting to any part of her proposal makes one a racist?  Can we
get a clarification?

|  observers.  This illustrates the need to, as Graves is cited above as
|  saying, continue to raise awareness within our community for
|  eventual, lasting change on the continued front of struggle against
|  the racists amongst us.  Yet we recommend a living stylesheet, rather
|  than repeated RFCs, be used as a mechanism for monitoring
|  exclusionary language in IETF documents [Terminology].

A stylesheet!  Earlier I had proposed -tongue-in-cheek- an IANA
registry, perhaps with a FCFS registration policy.  I hadn't expected
that suggestion to be taken seriously!  Yet here we are.

What is the difference between a "living stylesheet" and an IANA
registry?  An IANA registry would be better than a "living stylesheet"
in that at least IANA has the mechanisms and staff to host such a thing
and in that we have a pre-defined set of IANA registration policies for
us to choose from.  No, we'd not use FCFS, but probably Expert Review.
We even have mechanisms for selection of Experts.

Perhaps it would be fine if the RSE were to maintain a style guide,
provided that there be a way to address controversies that arise in the
process.  The IETF is nothing if not about process.

Among other flaws, draft-knodel-terminology-04's claims that "man-in-
the-middle" is not a standard term, and that "on-path attacker" is a
suitable substitute, are both completely incorrect.

Some two years ago when I semi-seriously proposed that MITM could be
re-acronymed as Mallory-in-the-middle I got an off-list email from one
of you asking what prompted that 'horrible attack' on Knodel.  At the
time I didn't even know who Knodel was!  But Mallory, like Alice, Bob,
Eve, Trent, and others, is part of the standard cast of characters used
in the cryptography literature, and of those Mallory is the one who
performs MITM attacks.  Some in our community are being much too quick
to see evil intent in others.

"On-path" is not a suitable replacement for MITM because the "middle" is
logical, not necessarily physical.  One can mount an MITM attack w/o
being on-path if one can cause a redirection, for example.  Conversely,
being on-path does not necessarily enable MITM attacks at network layers
of interest, unless the network layers of interest are susceptible to
MITM attacks.  Nor does being on-path mean the attacker is necessarily
mounting an active attack -- they could merely be eavesdropping.

Thus "on-path" is simply not a suitable replacement for MITM.

Furthermore, have any men have felt excluded by "man-in-the-middle"?

Because "MITM" has been so widely used for so long and, like the similar
MITB, so useful in conveying its central idea, it would be best to
re-acronym it rather than replace it should we really believe that men
feel excluded because of our use of it.

Nico
--