ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [v6ops] Review of: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03

2011-05-16 16:28:55

On May 11, 2011, at 5:25 PM, Joe Touch wrote:

Hi, all,

Although this is a minor point, it's also easy to address:

On 5/4/2011 4:56 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
...
Meanwhile, the discussion about whether or not to call this
"whitelisting" is pointless. The term is already well-established.

That's true, but equally true that the terms for disk drives used to use 
terms "master" and "slave" - equally antiquated and potentially racially 
charged terms. FWIW, the Los Angeles County banned the terms in 2003 when 
used for various purposes - including technology, preferring "primary" and 
"secondary", in specific. The terms don't even appear in the ATA spec after 
version 1.

For the terms in this doc, alternatives that do not require explanation (and 
aren't potentially racially charged) include "permit list" and "deny list".

the blacklist originates with charles the 2nd. it has no racial connotations in 
that context.

see also the death of cromwell and the resortation.

Joe
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>