On Thursday, 23 July 2020 08:47:42 UTC libor.peltan wrote: > 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,
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. > ... > > BR, > > Libor -- Paul _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
