Hi,
just a factual comment.
While primary/secondary = master/slave is indeed a recent transition of
terms among DNS community, and I agree that this should be handled
carefully when writing new RFCs,
parent/child is a different relation: `com.` domain is the parent of
`example.com.`.
I haven't heard about "main".
BR,
Libor
Dne 22.07.20 v 01:00 Michael De Roover napsal(a):
Hello,
I've read through RFC 8499, and found some things I considered odd.
Particularly page 14 and 19 which describe the "master files" and the
"primary" and "secondary" servers.
In most of the DNS-related documentation I've read so far, the "master
files" are often called zone files. I find it strange that in the RFC
this is only acknowledged, rather than defined into its own term and
prioritized.
Regarding the primary and secondary servers, it's a fair euphemism but
this among further fracturing of nomenclature in other projects makes
this definition very fragmented (master/slave is now
primary/secondary, main, parent/child, etc). This is something I find
unnecessary and harmful, as it creates confusion while merely
redefining the same. It also unnecessarily obsoletes older
documentation. Newcomers to the DNS could become confused. I was very
confused when I recently built my own DNS server infrastructure.
The discussion regarding these tends to get emotional and political,
but I feel like these should be kept outside of standards bodies. Just
like we are still stuck with 29.97 Hz refresh rates on televisions
from implementations half a century ago, these changes could also
affect those half a century from now on.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
