Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Michael De Roover <> Fri, 07 August 2020 09:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23D1A3A0E69 for <>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 02:54:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8zImyJQQJVt4 for <>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 02:54:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C7CA3A0E62 for <>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 02:54:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tp0.lan (tp0.lan []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4540611DD7; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 09:54:42 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <>
From: Michael De Roover <>
To: Ted Lemon <>,
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 11:54:42 +0200
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <5303244.dBo8Fx6Cfl@linux-9daj> <> <1725851.NVhN7QJb2C@linux-9daj> <> <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.5-1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 09:54:46 -0000

On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 09:59 -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> It’s not controversial.  That is, the problem isn’t that there is
> controversy, although clearly there is, since you’re debating it. The
> problem is also not that it’s offensive, although it is.
I don't deny that it is regarded as controversial, seemingly by people
with way too large a following on sites like Twitter. I'm asking why it
is controversial.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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?

Met vriendelijke groet / Best regards,
Michael De Roover