This document argues for and describes alternatives that shift specific language conventions used by RFC Authors and RFC Editors to avoid offensive terminology in the technical documentation of the RFC series. Specifically, this document details two sets of terms that are normalised on the technical level but offensive on a societal level. First, arguments are presented for why any offensive terms should be avoided by the IETF/IRTF. Second, problem statements for both sets of terms are presented and alternatives are referenced and proposed. There is a third section on additional considerations and general action points to address the RFC series, past and future. Lastly, a summary of recommendations is presented.The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and “OPTIONAL” in this document are to be interpreted as described in .