IETF Logo Mail Archive

[DNSOP] rfc8499bis: lame

Kazunori Fujiwara <fujiwara@jprs.co.jp> Thu, 08 June 2023 05:05 UTC

Return-Path: <fujiwara@jprs.co.jp>
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 4B260C151B17 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 22:05:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DLqXJ23i9EpK for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 22:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from off-send41.osa.jprs.co.jp (off-send41.osa.jprs.co.jp [117.104.133.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5F97C151525 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 22:05:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from off-sendsmg31.osa.jprs.co.jp (off-sendsmg31.osa.jprs.co.jp [172.23.8.161]) by off-send41.osa.jprs.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94D514058F2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jun 2023 14:05:19 +0900 (JST)
Received: from off-sendsmg31.osa.jprs.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by postfix.imss91 (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F9DF60224B7 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jun 2023 14:05:18 +0900 (JST)
Received: from localhost (off-cpu08.osa.jprs.co.jp [172.23.4.18]) by off-sendsmg31.osa.jprs.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AE196021D2B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jun 2023 14:05:18 +0900 (JST)
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2023 14:05:18 +0900
Message-Id: <20230608.140518.147158121993492754.fujiwara@jprs.co.jp>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
From: Kazunori Fujiwara <fujiwara@jprs.co.jp>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 24.5.1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-9.1.0.1373-9.0.0.1002-27678.005
X-TM-AS-Result: No-1.131-5.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No-1.131-5.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSS-9.1.0.1373-9.0.1002-27678.005
X-TMASE-Result: 10-1.131300-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: jOF9SGbtYWxCXIGdsOwlUh5+URxv1WlBvD4YKo9Stty+IQ+aeLlhn+qO SOOdRR5ao/JMRdhD/IoRUsV9if8r9+xl9HNVJWpc4t2mucDkRBH1+9bO3CCbk6fMhzfri3VFsy/ SXU7NTmh9xNrTXYQBB0OxpDw4sXUq23lEaQw/5rL5wtxODvYW/H0tCKdnhB58vqq8s2MNhPDOG2 o4DtJIL7bmjy6140jBsvUPdmSpWNqg897gz2/yblBIVsvVu9ABJ0RPnyOnrZKHQXw5caNcn5KuG wi8EHHjUsTNlv51MUOE00M2sE81g3vwGARWtx+O9hSuRBceDLR2zyPX38drUgAvXW6qzHRmGPMX TODW3lP2R9AM5XDcSDfTUPFOT39pCrjf/RvyhKYwoWvzsDx0QeimASDP9cox
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/mq7Ab562ZMrowrWKz0xA3guaYRg>
Subject: [DNSOP] rfc8499bis: lame
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Thu, 08 Jun 2023 05:05:29 -0000

It may be too late, but the word "lame" may have a discriminatory meaning.

As a non-native English user, I ask the dictionaries.
For example, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lame
The dictionary shows that lame" has four meanings:

"physically disabled", "injury", "weak",
Slang ("dull", "stupid" or "uninteresting").

In the discussions and previous usages of "lame delegation",
the "lame delegation" is not the perfect delegation.

We have the definition of "perfect"/"complete" delegation.
Then, other delegations are "inperfect"/"incomplete" delegation.

"lame" may have the discriminatory meaning.

Then, how about we stop using "lame delegation" and use terms like
"imperfect delegation" or "incomplete delegation" ?

For future discussion, the "imperfect"/"incomplete" delegation may be
classified.

--
Kazunori Fujiwara, JPRS <fujiwara@jprs.co.jp>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email