Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Michael De Roover <> Fri, 07 August 2020 13:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 201F53A078C for <>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 06:21:27 -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 7y-qEHmmNJ0e for <>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 06:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73BF93A0B76 for <>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 06:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tp0.lan (tp.lan []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EB9711E26; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 13:21:23 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <>
From: Michael De Roover <>
To: Vittorio Bertola <>, Paul Wouters <>
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 15:21:22 +0200
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.5-1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 13:21:27 -0000

On Fri, 2020-08-07 at 13:09 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> Apologizing in advance for the procedural remark, can I ask what's
> the point of discussing text in an already released document? If
> anyone is unhappy with that, they should just propose another draft
> that updates/obsoletes that document.
> Also, at this point in time, there is no IETF policy or community
> consensus yet on the mandatory replacement of any term, so the
> decision on that stands with the authors of each document and
> ultimately with the group that needs to get to consensus on the
> document. Anyone is free to propose a new draft that uses
> "master/slave" or a new terminology document that specifies those
> terms for some use cases. Then, we will see if it ever gets consensus
> (I doubt so).
Good point... The thread might've been better suited in a draft that
updates the current RFC. Most of it seems fine after all and reflects
the current accepted nomenclature. Just master/slave and zone files
(however that last one wasn't discussed much it seems). On one hand
there's apparently an attempt to somehow eradicate racism with this
RFC.. while on the other hand zone files are referred to as master
files, which I think is equally weird. I've never called them master
files and never saw anyone call them such either.

That said I am still very new to the IETF, RFCs and the DNS in
general... I don't know if I'm in a reasonable position to make an
update to the standard, let alone get it accepted. Even criticizing it
in the mailing list apparently makes one a privileged racist.

> However, I also find it inappropriate that people that disagree with
> that change, generally for reasons of clarity and backwards-
> compatibility that have nothing to do with racism, are immediately
> accused of being insensitive or even sympathetic to racism (moreover,
> racism against a specific ethnicity in a specific country, even if
> some participants almost never met any person from that ethnicity and
> country in their whole life, let alone discriminated them). This also
> has to stop, as it does not lead to any useful discussion.
Thanks a lot for these supportive words, I really appreciate it. And
yeah I don't consider myself a racist. Just confused about the proposed
solutions being part of an internet standard, which I don't consider
constructive. I like to think that there's one race - the human race.
One day I hope that we will be able to make that happen.

Met vriendelijke groet / Best regards,
Michael De Roover