Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

[Vittorio Bertola <[e-mail]>]

> Il 07/08/2020 12:02 Michael De Roover <[e-mail]> ha scritto:
> 
> > > 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.

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).

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.

-- 
Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
[e-mail] 
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy