Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

[Michael De Roover <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, 2020-08-07 at 10:33 -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> > On Aug 7, 2020, at 05:54, Michael De Roover <[e-mail]>
> > 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. 
So is it controversial then or not? And if not, why is it being
changed? As I've said several times by now, my concerns are merely
practical.

> I’m sure there is no racism in the Netherlands. However, English is
> not the language most commonly spoken there either. 
I don't live in the Netherlands though... I live in Belgium. But aside
from that, why is English being a first language seemingly a necessity
to speak about racism? But you're right, it is not all that common
here. It exists but nowhere near the extent of the US. With that said,
these standards are global.

> > > 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. 
Perhaps I shouldn't waste my time on writing a draft then. That's a
shame, but not unexpected. I don't consider myself in a position to do
so either.

> 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. 
Earlier in private email I've heard "making 1 or 2 people happy" being
used as an argument for implementation, along with the RFC that
suggested it - this one. Given that the DNS is used to some extent by
pretty much everyone with internet access (though to be fair, I doubt
that regular users even know what it is), I would certainly consider 1
or 2 people insignificant. But I'm open to the possibility.

However I certainly don't see the "racist dig" being used as a tool for
harassment in any somewhat professional environment (which I reckon DNS
servers are normally maintained in). It would seem insane to me to call
out a black colleague and show them it while saying "look at this
master and slave!".. why would you do that?

On the other hand, why are the zone files being called master files if
the goal is stopping a problem regarding racism? Which apparently has
to do with nomenclature, justifying its existence in an internet
standard?

> If this isn’t a big deal, then “what about my needs” isn’t going to
> work as a rejoinder. 
... Excuse me? So I must just accept people saying "oh your life
must've been so easy since you're white"? Sorry to break it but no, I'm
not a doormat.

But coming back to that. I'm sure you know that the prisoners in the
concentration camps also made the concentration camps, as part of
forced labor. They literally dug it out. So dig is also insensitive?
No, of course not!
Point is that if you try hard enough, you could take this
hypersensitivity to any level.

Maybe I should just stop wasting my time though. This is not getting
anywhere.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groet / Best regards,
Michael De Roover