On 6/10/20 3:48 PM, Nate Coraor wrote: > I'd like to propose that an effort be made to replace master/slave > terminology in MIT and Heimdal implementations at some future milestone.
MIT krb5 switched to using "replica" for non-primary KDCs as of release 1.17. This was an easy change technically, as the old term was only used in a user-visible way in documentation and in the name of one profile relation. The pull request for that change was here: https://github.com/krb5/krb5/pull/851 Replacing the term "master" is a larger technical challenge. We use that term in a DNS SRV record label (_master_kdc), and migrating that would come with a cost in network traffic and latency. Aside from the kprop architecture, we also use the term "master key" to describe the key used to encrypt long-term keys in the KDC database. I have rationalized to myself that the term "master" is the less problematic of the two terms, as it is used in a lot of different contexts (such as physical master keys, martial arts masters, master plumbers, and master recordings of records). But I don't know if that rationalization is adequate; from recent discussion I know that git's use of "master" for the initial default branch name has become a point of contention. ________________________________________________ Kerberos mailing list Kerberos@mit.edu https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/kerberos
