From 253e7982de5a5b44614ba0a8f00451024ea4dc3c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Miguel Young de la Sota Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 13:44:11 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Propose inclusive language for device bus roles Signed-off-by: Miguel Young de la Sota --- RoT/Protocol/RFCs/0000-Inclusive_Bus_Rules.md | 25 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+) create mode 100644 RoT/Protocol/RFCs/0000-Inclusive_Bus_Rules.md diff --git a/RoT/Protocol/RFCs/0000-Inclusive_Bus_Rules.md b/RoT/Protocol/RFCs/0000-Inclusive_Bus_Rules.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c1ed551 --- /dev/null +++ b/RoT/Protocol/RFCs/0000-Inclusive_Bus_Rules.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +* Name: Inclusive_Bus_Roles +* Date: 2020-10-07 +* Pull Request: [#26](https://github.com/opencomputeproject/Security/pull/26) + +# Objective + +This RFC proposes new language for referring to devices' connection roles on a +bus, replacing the outdated "master" and "slave" nomenclature. + +# Proposal + +We propose replacing all occurrences of "master" and "slave" with "host" and +"device". This terminology is already used in new proposals and language for +Cerberus, so this RFC simply makes existing practice normative. + +# Specification Changelist + +See above. `s/master/host/g` and `s/slave/device/g`, taking care to not replace +"master" where it does not refer to a bus role. + +# Alternatives Considered + +Many other choices exist for this nomenclature: "primary/secondary", +"host/target", and "client/server". Our choice is arbitrary and merely reflects +language we were already using.