Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

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

On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 10:01 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Aug 5, 2020, at 09:47, Michael De Roover <[e-mail]>
> 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.
Then why is the IETF mailing list open for discussion anyway?

> > 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.
Agreed, it should be kept up-to-date. With that said, I don't think
that documentation that otherwise works should be needlessly obsoleted.
There are still various tutorials out there on things like
Postfix/Dovecot that haven't changed since they were released years
ago. They still work just fine since the relevant components in
Postfix/Dovecot didn't change.

> > 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 ?
On a more personal note, my great-grandparents died in the gas chambers
in the second World War. The only reason why I'm even alive is because
one of them survived - my great-grandmother. So if I may, I do take
offense on this. Well clearly in 2020 I can take offense on just about
anything.

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