> On 22 Mar 2022, at 12:28, Alexander Vainshtein > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > I am not a native English speaker, and my understanding of what makes the > language inclusive or non-inclusive is quite limited. > But I have a couple of naive questions about the current draft > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-addogra-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-03): > 1. The draft uses the word "owner" quite frequently . Are the authors (and > the community) sure this word is not "burdened"?
The term is "address owner” and is from the original. > 2. Is the text "Note that if the IPvX address owner is available, then it > will always become the Active" proper English, i.e. is "Active" a noun so > that it can be prepended with "the"? Looking at a couple of instances it looks like the authors have s/Master/Active/. I don’t think Active is a noun, so I think they need to s/Master/Active Router/ If it were me I think that I would define AR == Active Router near the top and just use that term. Certainly the substitution of Master for Active does not work well and i wonder the term is not going to cause a bigger issue in the global engineering community than retaining the term Master. - Stewart > > Regards, > Sasha > > Office: +972-39266302 > Cell: +972-549266302 > Email: [email protected] > > -----Original Message----- > From: rtgwg <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 11:40 AM > To: Stewart Bryant <[email protected]>; Tal Mizrahi > <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Inclusive language > > In this case, as Acee pointed out in his presentation, there seemed to be a > technically accurate alternative term that is not burdened. > > So unless one has good reason to believe "active' is burdened, discussing > further alternative terms seems coutner-productive. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 3/22/2022 4:02 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: >> >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >>> On 22 Mar 2022, at 06:23, Tal Mizrahi <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> The following sentence caught my attention in the RTGWG discussion >>> about inclusive language in RFC5798 bis >>> (https://clicktime.symantec.com/3L8AZoX2tj7p3qPnJsD6UeC7GS?u=https%3A >>> %2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fmeeting%2F113%2Fmaterials%2Fslides-113-r >>> tgwg-3-vrrp-5798bis-01%29%3A >>> >>> "Please don’t make alternate suggestions without detailed knowledge >>> of both the VRRP protocol and the English Language." >>> >>> Ironically, this sentence is not inclusive (I am sure this was not >>> intentional). >>> FWIW, I believe all opinions should be heard, regardless of whether >>> people are fluent English speakers or not. >>> My two cents. >>> >> >> Whilst you are correct, I can see where they are coming from. >> >> The words were a bit harsh, but I am sure well intentioned. >> >> Alternative words bring their own context and it is necessary to understand >> the precise explicit and implicit semantics of the suggested replacement >> word. Eventually the technical community will pick an alternatives to words >> such as master that we all understand with the same degree of precision as >> the original terms, but until then we risk having a poorly understood set of >> replacement terms with imprecise meaning, that risk the precision of the >> protocol definitions. We also risk wasting hours in semantic debate between >> people that have different understandings of the subtle consequences for the >> protocol of their preferred replacement term. >> >> Perhaps in this case an alternative approach is to invent a new name say >> retsam and provide it with an identical definition to master but with any >> human concepts excluded or replaced by machine concepts. >> >> Stewart >> >> >>> Regards, >>> Tal. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rtgwg mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://clicktime.symantec.com/39atM6C2YZQ7feeGcqa5tBV7GS?u=https%3A% >>> 2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Frtgwg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rtgwg mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://clicktime.symantec.com/39atM6C2YZQ7feeGcqa5tBV7GS?u=https%3A%2 >> F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Frtgwg > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://clicktime.symantec.com/39atM6C2YZQ7feeGcqa5tBV7GS?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Frtgwg > > Notice: This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of > Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or > proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, > disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express > permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, > please notify the sender immediately and then delete all copies, including > any attachments. > > Notice: This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of > Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or > proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, > disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express > permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, > please notify the sender immediately and then delete all copies, including > any attachments. _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
