From: DNSOP <dnsop-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Vladimír Čunát <vladimir.cunat=2Bietf=40nic...@dmarc.ietf.org> Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 6:01 AM To: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [DNSOP] Coming soon: WG interim meeting on the definition of "lame delegation"
>On 19/06/2023 17.00, Masataka Ohta wrote: >>I can't see any problem with "lame" delegation than a "secondary" or "slave" server, because of the history of racial discrimination in US. >Honestly, I'm personally still failing understand the problem of using >slightly offending word when referring to a machine (e.g. "slave" or "lame"). I sympathize, but when communicating, there are three elements - the sender, the medium, and the recipient. Even if the sender doesn’t see a term as problematic, the recipient might, and that can hamper the communication. As the word about the technology with which we surround ourselves spills out into other communities, it’s good to shake off our jargon so that others may understand, accept, listen, and learn what is necessary. The “old labels” may have been arbitrarily applied and, unless you’ve walked the path for a long time, the terms are not accurately descriptive. In this case, that there are multiple meanings to “lame delegation” tell me that it is time to have a more precise labelling, or we will continue to confuse ourselves. In an earlier message, what I experienced as “lame” was the situation where the query seen by a server was one that the server had no answer. “Lame” isn’t all that descriptive, whether or not some may see it as an insulting term. (I’ll leave my soft peddled suggestions for the other message. 😉 )
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
