Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Wed, 05 August 2020 14:01 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 7D39F3A08E6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 07:01:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 mn5lDHBRHCet for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 07:01:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF3203A0A03 for <DNSOP@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 07:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BMCvq3622zCyk; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 16:01:11 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1596636071; bh=p2zwCI6a5p9AJopPpe9ha2t3gU37OLPff9TduQqcDK4=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:Cc:In-Reply-To:To; b=lTI8ghHK03CQzyyG+5WgpqtfNWblJLuCrjBZ6mbbhZEubxZsib1o4vnaeEPjMOMkq /fqKCj5KZFYO3CNxpELSU6wu9aAxOT1aZH1SgOG5r2hhZNj3Tdm4Q2yg59WDRoVZz7 y7j5FOq1XVCLp/zU4y2/md1tohMb6fbRYhw+tM34=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MmuhcOzNTGLe; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 16:01:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (unknown [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 16:01:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [193.110.157.210] (unknown [193.110.157.210]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DAD406029BA4; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 10:01:08 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 10:01:07 -0400
Message-Id: <ADEE527B-F74A-41E8-B54C-54C3A5435B66@nohats.ca>
References: <9fa12cfddbddbf7dda342564537934c3a244afdc.camel@nixmagic.com>
Cc: DNSOP@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <9fa12cfddbddbf7dda342564537934c3a244afdc.camel@nixmagic.com>
To: Michael De Roover <ietf@nixmagic.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17F80)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/KAfOL70w4XqwG849_N8W4ysP910>
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: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 14:01:22 -0000

On Aug 5, 2020, at 09:47, Michael De Roover <ietf@nixmagic.com> wrote:
> 
> Honestly I wouldn't change it at all. I mean.. why is the use of
> master/slave controversial anyway?

This sounds very tone deaf. Even if you personally can’t grasp it, just take it as an accepted fact and go from there.

> Particularly older documentation is something I'm concerned about, and
> having to adjust any current documentation to accomodate this change,
> as well as code and config files.

Your documentation should continuously be updated to be of any value. Using 5 year old documentation is wrong for many other reasons.

> Personally I don't
> see anything controversial in it.

I suspect you haven’t suffered structural racisms because if the colour of your skin and because of what happened to your grand parents ?

Paul