Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

From: Michael De Roover <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 01:11:34 +0200

Hello,

Sorry for the late reply.
I feel concerned about using the term "responder" for a zone transfer
target. Instinctively it makes me think of a DNS server responding to a
regular query. In a non-DNS context it would make me think of a first
responder in e.g. health services. Wouldn't it be unintuitive to use
this term for a zone transfer?

On Thu, 2020-07-23 at 08:50 +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
> i introduced the master/slave terminology in rfc 2136, because i
> needed names 
> for the roles in an AXFR/IXFR transaction, and the zone transfer
> hierarchy 
> could be more than one layer deep, such that a server might initiate
> some 
> AXFR/IXFR's to the "primary master" but then respond to AXFR/IXFR's
> from other 
> servers. in retrospect i should have chosen the terms, "transfer
> initiator" 
> and "transfer responder". however, the hydraulic brake and clutch
> systems in 
> my car had "master cylinders" and "slave cylinders", and so i did not
> think i 
> was either inventing a new use for the words "master" and "slave", or
> that my 
> use of them for this purpose would be controversial. i was naive, and
> i 
> suggest that we revisit the terminology we use in all our distributed
> systems, 
> starting with DNS zone transfer roles.
-- 
Met vriendelijke groet / Best regards,
Michael De Roover

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 01:04:22 +0000

> this term for a zone transfer?

i borrowed the initiator/responder terminology from iSCSI, and it seems 
intuitive to me. this isn't a client/server situation, because a given host 
might be both a client and a server, in a multi-level transfer graph. we need 
terminology that describes the transaction, and not the host or hosts 
participating in that transaction. we stopped using requester/responder when 
the op codes stopped being limited to just QUERY and IQUERY and STATUS. (in 
other words, UPDATE is technically a request, but not notionally so.)

what's your proposal?

-- 
Paul

---

From: "StJohns, Michael" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 21:41:02 -0400

How about source/sink?  Mike

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 21:04 Paul Vixie <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 02:00:58 +0000

> How about source/sink?  Mike

if we need something specific to transfers, which describes transfer roles 
rather than server types, source/sink would be unambiguous in my opinion.

-- 
Paul

---

From: Michael De Roover <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 15:46:55 +0200

Honestly I wouldn't change it at all. I mean.. why is the use of
master/slave controversial anyway? And how would changing a name in
technical nomenclature change this?

Particularly older documentation is something I'm concerned about, and
having to adjust any current documentation to accomodate this change,
as well as code and config files. And hearing the reasoning behind
master/slave... I think that it coming from the cylinders in a car's
brake and clutch system is actually quite amazing. Personally I don't
see anything controversial in it. If anything I find it intriguing.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 10:00:36 -0400

On Aug 5, 2020, at 9:46 AM, Michael De Roover <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Honestly I wouldn't change it at all.

This decision has already been made; debating it further isn’t going to be fruitful.

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 10:01:07 -0400

On Aug 5, 2020, at 09:47, Michael De Roover <[email-masked]> wrote:
> master/slave controversial anyway?

This sounds very tone deaf. Even if you personally can’t grasp it, just take it as an accepted fact and go from there.

> as well as code and config files.

Your documentation should continuously be updated to be of any value. Using 5 year old documentation is wrong for many other reasons.

> 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 ?

Paul

---

From: Evan Hunt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 04:18:18 +0000

> other words, UPDATE is technically a request, but not notionally so.)

As I said earlier, I think "primary" and "seconary" are well-enough
understood concepts now that we can describe roles in a particular
transaction with phrases like "acting as a primary" or "acting as a
secondary" and get the point across without much difficulty. But if
that's not acceptable, then maybe "transfer provider" and "transfer
recipient"?

-- 
Evan Hunt -- [email-masked]
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 07:49:32 +0000

On Friday, 7 August 2020 04:18:18 UTC Evan Hunt wrote:
> > ...

when we started, bind was using the words "primary" and "secondary" in its 
config file, and was documenting the phrases "primary server" and "secondary 
server" in its operations guide. confusion was common, because in those days 
recursion wasn't optional and shared a namespace with authority data. so we 
also had terms like "recursive server" and "authority server" in wide use.

virtually any semantically meaningful term that's applied to the transaction 
rather than to the zone or the server, is fine by me. including going back to 
"primary" and "secondary", which feels a bit like going through a time machine 
to go back to when i was 25 and tell my younger self "just leave things as 
alone, trust me."

-- 
Paul

---

From: Michael De Roover <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 11:54:42 +0200

On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 09:59 -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> It’s not controversial.  That is, the problem isn’t that there is
> controversy, although clearly there is, since you’re debating it. The
> problem is also not that it’s offensive, although it is.
I don't deny that it is regarded as controversial, seemingly by people
with way too large a following on sites like Twitter. I'm asking why it
is controversial.

> The problem is that it is a useful harassment tool for racists.. The
> U.S. has a large enough population of racists that it’s hard for a
> Black person to avoid them. And the term “master/slave” is a way to
> get in a racist dig without being called on it: you just emphasize
> the words a bit as you use them, looking the Black person in the eye
> as you do so, and everyone knows what’s being said, but there’s no
> way to complain about it without seeming crazy.
As I thought then. Racism in the United States. I suggest that the US
solves these issues internally. Police brutality and racism in the
country are very real but are not something a change in nomenclature
will change at all.

> So by using these terms in standards, we are putting a tool for
> harassment in the hands of people who will definitely use it. We
> should not do that, and the desire to continue doing things as we
> always have is not a good reason not to change.
That's like saying that in order for someone who wants to be a surgeon
but hates blood, we need to remove the blood. Absolutely nonsensical.

> This decision has already been made; debating it further isn’t going
I still see draft updates to the RFC being posted regularly. From that
it seems reasonable to assume that the RFC is still under development.
Am I wrong?

---

From: Michael De Roover <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 12:02:54 +0200

On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 10:01 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> This sounds very tone deaf. Even if you personally can’t grasp it,
> just take it as an accepted fact and go from there.
Then why is the IETF mailing list open for discussion anyway?

> Your documentation should continuously be updated to be of any value.
> Using 5 year old documentation is wrong for many other reasons.
Agreed, it should be kept up-to-date. With that said, I don't think
that documentation that otherwise works should be needlessly obsoleted.
There are still various tutorials out there on things like
Postfix/Dovecot that haven't changed since they were released years
ago. They still work just fine since the relevant components in
Postfix/Dovecot didn't change.

> 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.

---

From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 13:09:12 +0200 (CEST)

> Il 07/08/2020 12:02 Michael De Roover <[email-masked]> ha scritto:
> 
> > > Personally I don't

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
[email-masked] 
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy

---

From: Michael De Roover <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 15:21:22 +0200

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.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 10:33:39 -0400

> On Aug 7, 2020, at 05:54, Michael De Roover <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> It’s not controversial. 
> I don't deny that it is regarded as controversial,

As you can see, I said (privately) that the problem is not that the use of this terminology is controversial. That’s simply not the issue. 

> seemingly by people

It is not. 

> country are very real but are not something a change in nomenclature

I’m sure there is no racism in the Netherlands. However, English is not the language most commonly spoken there either. 

> but hates blood, we need to remove the blood. Absolutely nonsensical.

Er, no, it’s not at all like saying that. This response is incoherent. 
> it seems reasonable to assume that the RFC is still under development.

If you try to publish a draft in the ietf that uses these terms, it will not get consensus. So if your goal is to publish useful standards, you will spend your time more wisely than to try to win this battle. If not, you will waste out time debating this point. 

You mentioned that you feel sad that people are treating you as of you are a racist. I don’t think you are a racist. I think that you just don’t see this as a big deal. What is being asked of you is not that you see it as a big deal, but that you allow the possibility that it is a big enough deal to enough people that it is worth taking their needs into account. 

If this isn’t a big deal, then “what about my needs” isn’t going to work as a rejoinder.

---

From: Michael De Roover <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 19:26:48 +0200

On Fri, 2020-08-07 at 10:33 -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> As you can see, I said (privately) that the problem is not that the
> use of this terminology is controversial. That’s simply not the
> issue. 
So is it controversial then or not? And if not, why is it being
changed? As I've said several times by now, my concerns are merely
practical.

> I’m sure there is no racism in the Netherlands. However, English is
> not the language most commonly spoken there either. 
I don't live in the Netherlands though... I live in Belgium. But aside
from that, why is English being a first language seemingly a necessity
to speak about racism? But you're right, it is not all that common
here. It exists but nowhere near the extent of the US. With that said,
these standards are global.

> > > This decision has already been made; debating it further isn’t
> > > going
> > > to be fruitful.
> If you try to publish a draft in the ietf that uses these terms, it
> will not get consensus. So if your goal is to publish useful
> standards, you will spend your time more wisely than to try to win
> this battle. If not, you will waste out time debating this point. 
Perhaps I shouldn't waste my time on writing a draft then. That's a
shame, but not unexpected. I don't consider myself in a position to do
so either.

> You mentioned that you feel sad that people are treating you as of
> you are a racist. I don’t think you are a racist. I think that you
> just don’t see this as a big deal. What is being asked of you is not
> that you see it as a big deal, but that you allow the possibility
> that it is a big enough deal to enough people that it is worth taking
> their needs into account. 
Earlier in private email I've heard "making 1 or 2 people happy" being
used as an argument for implementation, along with the RFC that
suggested it - this one. Given that the DNS is used to some extent by
pretty much everyone with internet access (though to be fair, I doubt
that regular users even know what it is), I would certainly consider 1
or 2 people insignificant. But I'm open to the possibility.

However I certainly don't see the "racist dig" being used as a tool for
harassment in any somewhat professional environment (which I reckon DNS
servers are normally maintained in). It would seem insane to me to call
out a black colleague and show them it while saying "look at this
master and slave!".. why would you do that?

On the other hand, why are the zone files being called master files if
the goal is stopping a problem regarding racism? Which apparently has
to do with nomenclature, justifying its existence in an internet
standard?

> If this isn’t a big deal, then “what about my needs” isn’t going to
... Excuse me? So I must just accept people saying "oh your life
must've been so easy since you're white"? Sorry to break it but no, I'm
not a doormat.

But coming back to that. I'm sure you know that the prisoners in the
concentration camps also made the concentration camps, as part of
forced labor. They literally dug it out. So dig is also insensitive?
No, of course not!
Point is that if you try hard enough, you could take this
hypersensitivity to any level.

Maybe I should just stop wasting my time though. This is not getting
anywhere.

---

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 13:29:03 -0400

Michael

You are correct - this is not going anywhere fast.  The chairs will be
putting the revised 8499bis up for adoption soon (on return from holiday)
and
you are free to express yourself then.

tim

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 10:59:18 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 7 Aug 2020, Evan Hunt wrote:

> secondary" and get the point across without much difficulty.

I agree.

> that's not acceptable, then maybe "transfer provider" and "transfer

That would require a new learning curve and in addition would be only
describing 1 aspect of a primary server. It might work when you are
talking about XFR, but would be very confusing otherwise.

Paul

---

From: Jared Mauch <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 07:22:29 -0400

> On Aug 8, 2020, at 12:33 AM, Paul Wouters <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

We are fundamentally talking about caching of the content. In the squid or CDN cases this would be parent/child, but the child is a versioned clone :-)

It may be worthwhile to look at the replicated data techniques amongst other protocols and services with an open mind if the WG is still thinking about the terminology. 

- Jared