You know that there are other terms which have been widely used for a long time that we have successfully changed (most) people's minds about using? It is entirely reasonable to do.
In fact, it's a non-Inclusive practice. One effect of updating the language is that you exclude people of a certain generation. So you can identify and out and then segregate people based on the terminology they use. Are you familiar with "shibboleths"? Happens all the time.
What the IETF is doing here is creating shibboleths for the next generation of IT professionals to separate themselves from the previous generation, who may not be careful enough to update our language.
Your argument is that making language more inclusive is, in fact, exclusionary because people of certain generations are, presumably, incapable of updating their language and thus will continue to go around saying the old, exclusionary things and thus being shunned by the younger generations?
Do you not want to think about that for a bit and consider how utterly ludicrous in sounds in the face of, y'know, reality?
3. "Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy"
4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."
8. "Keep the pressure on."
11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative."
13. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
So if fictional masters and slaves are okay, then what are routers running OSPF? They're not human, and I hope nobody wants to anthropomorphize them so much that they could feel pain, or know injustice. So a router's master/slave relationship is strictly a technical fiction. Is it the best description of the relationship? Is it better than "leader/follower"? Perhaps; I know several other systems that qualify.
Does this trigger African-Americans today who never were slaves? Perhaps.
I'm just not sure of the wisdom to paper over history, to paper over reality, by saying these words are taboo because of what they represent, indeed, in a certain human context of usage.
I could argue that if we're prohibited from depicting masters and slaves in books, films, and OSPF, then people will more easily forget what it means to be a slave, and thereby be condemned to repeat the past which they do not remember. Perhaps it would be more useful to retain "master/slave" relationships among computers, so that we can demonstrate how that works to our children, and show them why it is detestable to human beings.