Re: [DNSOP] rfc8499bis: lame
I would posit that the potential to view the word as offensive has increased as language usage has changed in the intervening years since it was first used in this context. As one who is a) a native English speaker and b) grew up in an environment which had an equestrian community element, ‘lame’ to me, implied a transient condition, which has seemed somewhat appropriate to use in our context. However, the change in language has resulted in a change of the primary meaning to many people, and it may now be found offensive by some. As such, I believe it’s time to look at changing. Bob > On Jun 8, 2023, at 19:48, Wes Hardaker wrote: > > Paul Wouters writes: > >> That was one of my suggestions, don't define it or declare it obsolete. >> It will ofcourse take time for people to stop using it. > > There were a number of us in favor of this option, I think. But the > consensus was certainly not there to stop using the term. Maybe the > tide is shifting, as it seems like more are in favor of defining new > terms now than the previous discussion round. > -- > Wes Hardaker > USC/ISI > > ___ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] rfc8499bis: lame
On 6/8/23 8:19 PM, Shivan Kaul Sahib wrote: On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 at 16:58, Paul Hoffman wrote: On Jun 8, 2023, at 4:47 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote: > > Paul Wouters writes: > >> That was one of my suggestions, don't define it or declare it obsolete. >> It will ofcourse take time for people to stop using it. > > There were a number of us in favor of this option, I think. But the > consensus was certainly not there to stop using the term. Maybe the > tide is shifting, as it seems like more are in favor of defining new > terms now than the previous discussion round. If y'all are going to choose a new term, please do so for the right reason. This thread was started by Kazunori saying "the word "lame" may have a discriminatory meaning". I spent hours a few years ago looking into this when it first came up, and I believe he is incorrect, or at least too concerned. In the US and UK, the use of "lame" is mostly descriptive, only occasionally derogatory. Of course it is a negative word: that's the point. But it's not used against people in the same way that some other negative words are. Specifically commenting on this: I don't think it matters how two countries in the world (US and UK) use the word if that's not how the rest of the world interprets it. The word "lame" is also problematic in the US: 2015 Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/13/lame-stand-up-and-other-words-we-use-to-insult-the-disabled-without-even-knowing-it/ 2021 BBC: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210330-the-harmful-ableist-language-you-unknowingly-use -- Katherine___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] rfc8499bis: lame
On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 at 16:58, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Jun 8, 2023, at 4:47 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote: > > > > Paul Wouters writes: > > > >> That was one of my suggestions, don't define it or declare it obsolete. > >> It will ofcourse take time for people to stop using it. > > > > There were a number of us in favor of this option, I think. But the > > consensus was certainly not there to stop using the term. Maybe the > > tide is shifting, as it seems like more are in favor of defining new > > terms now than the previous discussion round. > > If y'all are going to choose a new term, please do so for the right > reason. This thread was started by Kazunori saying "the word "lame" may > have a discriminatory meaning". I spent hours a few years ago looking into > this when it first came up, and I believe he is incorrect, or at least too > concerned. In the US and UK, the use of "lame" is mostly descriptive, only > occasionally derogatory. Of course it is a negative word: that's the point. > But it's not used against people in the same way that some other negative > words are. > Specifically commenting on this: I don't think it matters how two countries in the world (US and UK) use the word if that's not how the rest of the world interprets it. > > --Paul Hoffman > > ___ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] rfc8499bis: lame
On Jun 8, 2023, at 4:47 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote: > > Paul Wouters writes: > >> That was one of my suggestions, don't define it or declare it obsolete. >> It will ofcourse take time for people to stop using it. > > There were a number of us in favor of this option, I think. But the > consensus was certainly not there to stop using the term. Maybe the > tide is shifting, as it seems like more are in favor of defining new > terms now than the previous discussion round. If y'all are going to choose a new term, please do so for the right reason. This thread was started by Kazunori saying "the word "lame" may have a discriminatory meaning". I spent hours a few years ago looking into this when it first came up, and I believe he is incorrect, or at least too concerned. In the US and UK, the use of "lame" is mostly descriptive, only occasionally derogatory. Of course it is a negative word: that's the point. But it's not used against people in the same way that some other negative words are. --Paul Hoffman ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] rfc8499bis: lame
Paul Wouters writes: > That was one of my suggestions, don't define it or declare it obsolete. > It will ofcourse take time for people to stop using it. There were a number of us in favor of this option, I think. But the consensus was certainly not there to stop using the term. Maybe the tide is shifting, as it seems like more are in favor of defining new terms now than the previous discussion round. -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] rfc8499bis: lame
On Thu, 8 Jun 2023, Kazunori Fujiwara wrote: It may be too late, but the word "lame" may have a discriminatory meaning. Then, how about we stop using "lame delegation" That was one of my suggestions, don't define it or declare it obsolete. It will ofcourse take time for people to stop using it. Paul ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last call for draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting
Thanks Benno! I have received a fix from Dick Franks. I forgot to update this field from: Value Name Status Reference - --- TBD Agent-Domain Standard [this document] To: Value Description Status Reference - --- TBD Report Channel Standard [this document] That is, the value does not have a name, but does have a description. For consistency with the rest of the document, the description should be “Report Channel” instead of “Agent Domain”). I have also received a report from DNSDIR review about a broken link in the references. I will update that too. Warmly, Roy > On 8 Jun 2023, at 10:59, Benno Overeinder wrote: > > Dear DNSOP WG, > > The authors and the chairs feel this document has reached the stage where > it's ready for Working Group Last Call. > > This starts a Working Group Last Call for: > draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting. > > Current versions of the draft is available here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting/. > > The Current Intended Status of this document is: Standards Track. > > Please review the draft and offer relevant comments. > If this does not seem appropriate please speak out. > If someone feels the document is *not* ready for publication, please speak > out with your reasons. > Supporting statements that the document is ready are also welcome. > > This starts a two week Working Group Last Call process, and ends on: June > 22nd, 2023. > > Thanks, > > -- Benno > > ___ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
[DNSOP] Working Group Last call for draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting
Dear DNSOP WG, The authors and the chairs feel this document has reached the stage where it's ready for Working Group Last Call. This starts a Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting. Current versions of the draft is available here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting/. The Current Intended Status of this document is: Standards Track. Please review the draft and offer relevant comments. If this does not seem appropriate please speak out. If someone feels the document is *not* ready for publication, please speak out with your reasons. Supporting statements that the document is ready are also welcome. This starts a two week Working Group Last Call process, and ends on: June 22nd, 2023. Thanks, -- Benno ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
[DNSOP] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-08: (with COMMENT)
Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-08: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional/ -- COMMENT: -- Thanks to Gonzalo Salgueiro for his ARTART review. A stylistic point: The "If message ... full response." sentence (containing BCP 14 key words) should be struck from the Abstract and from the Introduction. Those are unusual places for interoperability assertions. It's all spelled out in Section 3 anyway; there's no need for it all to appear several times. ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
