Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 07 August 2020 14:33 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60DE83A046E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 07:33:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AViAEyyB9--Z for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 07:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72e.google.com (mail-qk1-x72e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D25C43A0303 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 07:33:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72e.google.com with SMTP id g26so1890702qka.3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 07 Aug 2020 07:33:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=nmev1r/OYKou0ZBXQ//ejWz8rRrlsMw+k6d6yH9vz6g=; b=m9oThbPioQ1LbScLY4WHEEpjKJMTnibUzwf1bCtAlA/DDIZPLyXKRCGxZNSuLrV0Yr C9Jufonta2nDsDEC2D4PongHs5bZRUtfaCYr/cwDypkLJb4SMXz9HG57m3O8tEaNo4Ck 9FYJOXZ1nisuRqvMJApV2tY2O3TdDovrHWQofI2+KGSnDRKMVxOA3Px8Jr/27Mag8eb+ olx+LVO7rO14feTanRAlQ8j3lK1c06k+qKv6i3G/JZ/Y6XgYgU+atBZilYHBa+rtFhVG Dz8FbvRRBCn71QQgaUFre/rTfN1g/O2sM+ZT6yEzQRoQxBMfYJMBr9J05cdk0ZcdmEOA p/9Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=nmev1r/OYKou0ZBXQ//ejWz8rRrlsMw+k6d6yH9vz6g=; b=eMdFiyvbOwxBwdX3z4U1pOpByNOG5XkOhn1FFwsxLLyjPuulEM8+gw3y+pDlpYJlJY A3wuOLBukexfPUcLiBPgANRe/3nC79CMKowiqQt2ip8DNwneJOyWX0sC3fWmgjjOzebh T1OOXygFWj+hbxUj6wzqHUrEcGcV3XylQaYlvsbFSFj67oHFkNPT9S+r3ZDezBZO1Waq Nl0bP/vTsvsZ+4FRiLbnaaNUqt1rs3eZsau+raYJyZcshZSq+cYitWbp03dz/ikkqtUg O1o//rkye79qZwIoL1L4kRBwaJNuJ0Pb3mb2YfyUOO54eXLbfTf8bysHp3Z3VAJnWZBQ 16EA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530hDA4KN6UZH3jvJnKMFX601w+Ua/TvBprTPaxG12QrGnKD/lhp ultKwQfS+3VescnGoG/aYU0kRHiYdg8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwiFytcs5tBRu/yAxdeORXJPTLEYoqxj1phn0XrCmtRHFj3eZ4f2wxrjMwFgRFFj+1Es36Wqw==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:a05:: with SMTP id i5mr13393170qka.444.1596810821519; Fri, 07 Aug 2020 07:33:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([2600:380:bc71:e649:300a:84f3:46cc:f3cb]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z14sm7328212qtn.92.2020.08.07.07.33.40 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 07 Aug 2020 07:33:40 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 10:33:39 -0400
Message-Id: <C66D1958-9DF6-485F-B3A3-97C39C0D1D9D@fugue.com>
References: <2f35d50b9a56f1a19463e230f56103288f1dca06.camel@nixmagic.com>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <2f35d50b9a56f1a19463e230f56103288f1dca06.camel@nixmagic.com>
To: Michael De Roover <ietf@nixmagic.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18A349)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/-QKacSXXl2HZpnUhhhBxvfCalrg>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 14:33:44 -0000

> On Aug 7, 2020, at 05:54, Michael De Roover <ietf@nixmagic.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 09:59 -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> It’s not controversial. 
> I don't deny that it is regarded as controversial,

As you can see, I said (privately) that the problem is not that the use of this terminology is controversial. That’s simply not the issue. 

> seemingly by people
> with way too large a following on sites like Twitter. I'm asking why it
> is controversial.

It is not. 

>> The problem is that it is a useful harassment tool for racists.. The
>> U.S. has a large enough population of racists that it’s hard for a
>> Black person to avoid them. And the term “master/slave” is a way to
>> get in a racist dig without being called on it: you just emphasize
>> the words a bit as you use them, looking the Black person in the eye
>> as you do so, and everyone knows what’s being said, but there’s no
>> way to complain about it without seeming crazy.
> As I thought then. Racism in the United States. I suggest that the US
> solves these issues internally. Police brutality and racism in the
> country are very real but are not something a change in nomenclature
> will change at all.
> 

I’m sure there is no racism in the Netherlands. However, English is not the language most commonly spoken there either. 

>> So by using these terms in standards, we are putting a tool for
>> harassment in the hands of people who will definitely use it. We
>> should not do that, and the desire to continue doing things as we
>> always have is not a good reason not to change.
> That's like saying that in order for someone who wants to be a surgeon
> but hates blood, we need to remove the blood. Absolutely nonsensical.

Er, no, it’s not at all like saying that. This response is incoherent. 
> 
>> This decision has already been made; debating it further isn’t going
>> to be fruitful.
> I still see draft updates to the RFC being posted regularly. From that
> it seems reasonable to assume that the RFC is still under development.
> Am I wrong?

If you try to publish a draft in the ietf that uses these terms, it will not get consensus. So if your goal is to publish useful standards, you will spend your time more wisely than to try to win this battle. If not, you will waste out time debating this point. 

You mentioned that you feel sad that people are treating you as of you are a racist. I don’t think you are a racist. I think that you just don’t see this as a big deal. What is being asked of you is not that you see it as a big deal, but that you allow the possibility that it is a big enough deal to enough people that it is worth taking their needs into account. 

If this isn’t a big deal, then “what about my needs” isn’t going to work as a rejoinder.