Terminology, Power, and Inclusive Language in Internet-Drafts and RFCs
draft-knodel-terminology-13
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Mallory Knodel , Niels ten Oever | ||
| Last updated | 2023-07-25 (Latest revision 2023-01-18) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
This document argues for more inclusive language conventions sometimes used by RFC authors and the RFC Production Centre in Internet-Drafts that are work in progress, and in new RFCs that may be published in any of the RFC series, in order to foster greater knowledge transfer and improve diversity of participation in the IETF. It is important to note that this is not standard, it does not represent IETF consensus, and should not be misconstrued as anything other than the authors' views.
Authors
Mallory Knodel
Niels ten Oever
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)