The IETF's policy is to consider replacing these obsolete terms; there is no mandate.
That said, I will push us strongly to do so: there is no harm in using "block list" and "allow list" instead, and we should. Barry On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 1:53 PM Steven M Jones <s...@crash.com> wrote: > > On 8/3/23 12:50 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > > > > There is a push to avoid names that might recall racial prejudice, so > > blacklists are sometimes called blocklists... The mentioned Appendix > > D talks about "whitelists of generally recognized forwarding > > services". I support sticking to classic names, since any racial > > prejudice is only in the ears of the listeners, and not implied by > > those terms. Don't let political correctness make us color-blind. > > > Many organizations now have policies relating to these language choices, > often under more programs like "diversity, equity, and inclusion" or > similar. We may have no choice but to conform if such a policy has been > published for the IETF as a whole. > > A quick check of https://www.ietf.org/diversity/ seems to mostly focus > on gender, families (childcare) and the English language. A skim of > 2015's RFC 7704 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7704) seems to > focus more on participants and behavior. Anybody know if the language > choices have been addressed elsewhere? > > --S. > > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
