Moin! > On 02 Apr 2015, at 22:35, Ted Lemon <ted.le...@nominum.com> wrote: > >> On Apr 2, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Rose, Scott W. <scott.r...@nist.gov> wrote: >> FWIW, when we were writing NIST SP 800-81 (the DNSSEC guide), we were told >> in the comments (can't remember the commenter) that primary/secondary should >> be used to denote roles, and master/slave to denote a relationship in a >> transfer. Minor difference, but technically a primary could be a slave to a >> hidden master, secondaries could get zone data via non-AXFR means, etc. > > That's an interesting distinction, but would be better made using different > words. Yes. I used the term hidden primary in the past, and technically there would be no reason for a setup hidden primary -> primary -> secondaries, as you have two single point of failure (SPOF) there. I wouldn't deploy that. For me these words (master/primary, slave/secondary) alway have been synonyms.
So long Ralf _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
