I’ve had several conversations with one of the 8499 authors a few months back and said that we need to adjust this. I let it drop but the topic was going to be part two f our chairs slides next week.
The chairs did some reviewing of all Currently adopted documents as well. Thanks Tim Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 23, 2020, at 05:02, Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote: > > 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 _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
