Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

> On Aug 8, 2020, at 12:33 AM, Paul Wouters wrote: > > That would require a new learning curve and in addition would be only > describing 1 aspect of a primary server. It might work when you are > talking about XFR, but would be very confusing otherwise. We are fundamentally talking about cac

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

On Fri, 7 Aug 2020, Evan Hunt wrote: As I said earlier, I think "primary" and "seconary" are well-enough understood concepts now that we can describe roles in a particular transaction with phrases like "acting as a primary" or "acting as a secondary" and get the point across without much difficu

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Michael You are correct - this is not going anywhere fast. The chairs will be putting the revised 8499bis up for adoption soon (on return from holiday) and you are free to express yourself then. tim On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 1:27 PM Michael De Roover wrote: > On Fri, 2020-08-07 at 10:33 -0400,

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

On Fri, 2020-08-07 at 10:33 -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: > > On Aug 7, 2020, at 05:54, Michael De Roover > > wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 09:59 -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: > > > It’s not controversial. > > I don't deny that it is regarded as controversial, > > As you can see, I said (privately) that

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

> On Aug 7, 2020, at 05:54, Michael De Roover wrote: > On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 09:59 -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: >> It’s not controversial. > I don't deny that it is regarded as controversial, As you can see, I said (privately) that the problem is not that the use of this terminology is controversia

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

On Fri, 2020-08-07 at 13:09 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Apologizing in advance for the procedural remark, can I ask what's > the point of discussing text in an already released document? If > anyone is unhappy with that, they should just propose another draft > that updates/obsoletes that docu

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

> Il 07/08/2020 12:02 Michael De Roover ha scritto: > > > > Personally I don't > > > see anything controversial in it. > > > > I suspect you haven’t suffered structural racisms because if the > > colour of your skin and because of what happened to your grand > > parents ? > On a more personal

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 10:01 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote: > On Aug 5, 2020, at 09:47, Michael De Roover > wrote: > > Honestly I wouldn't change it at all. I mean.. why is the use of > > master/slave controversial anyway? > > This sounds very tone deaf. Even if you personally can’t grasp it, > just

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 09:59 -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: > It’s not controversial. That is, the problem isn’t that there is > controversy, although clearly there is, since you’re debating it. The > problem is also not that it’s offensive, although it is. I don't deny that it is regarded as controversia

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

On Friday, 7 August 2020 04:18:18 UTC Evan Hunt wrote: > On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 01:04:22AM +, Paul Vixie wrote: > > ... > > > > what's your proposal? > > As I said earlier, I think "primary" and "seconary" are well-enough > understood concepts now that we can describe roles in a particular >

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 01:04:22AM +, Paul Vixie wrote: > On Tuesday, 4 August 2020 23:11:34 UTC Michael De Roover wrote: > > i borrowed the initiator/responder terminology from iSCSI, and it seems > intuitive to me. this isn't a client/server situation, because a given host > might be both a

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

On Aug 5, 2020, at 09:47, Michael De Roover wrote: > > Honestly I wouldn't change it at all. I mean.. why is the use of > master/slave controversial anyway? This sounds very tone deaf. Even if you personally can’t grasp it, just take it as an accepted fact and go from there. > Particularly ol

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

On Aug 5, 2020, at 9:46 AM, Michael De Roover wrote: > Honestly I wouldn't change it at all. This decision has already been made; debating it further isn’t going to be fruitful. ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listin

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Honestly I wouldn't change it at all. I mean.. why is the use of master/slave controversial anyway? And how would changing a name in technical nomenclature change this? Particularly older documentation is something I'm concerned about, and having to adjust any current documentation to accomodate t

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

On Wednesday, 5 August 2020 01:41:02 UTC StJohns, Michael wrote: > How about source/sink? Mike if we need something specific to transfers, which describes transfer roles rather than server types, source/sink would be unambiguous in my opinion. -- Paul

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

How about source/sink? Mike On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 21:04 Paul Vixie wrote: > On Tuesday, 4 August 2020 23:11:34 UTC Michael De Roover wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Sorry for the late reply. > > I feel concerned about using the term "responder" for a zone transfer > > target. Instinctively it makes

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

On Tuesday, 4 August 2020 23:11:34 UTC Michael De Roover wrote: > Hello, > > Sorry for the late reply. > I feel concerned about using the term "responder" for a zone transfer > target. Instinctively it makes me think of a DNS server responding to a > regular query. In a non-DNS context it would ma

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Hello, Sorry for the late reply. I feel concerned about using the term "responder" for a zone transfer target. Instinctively it makes me think of a DNS server responding to a regular query. In a non-DNS context it would make me think of a first responder in e.g. health services. Wouldn't it be uni

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

On Fri, 24 Jul 2020, Ray Bellis wrote: "master" and "slave" are both nouns and verbs. It's very common to say "this zone is slaved from " and it's completely gramatically correct. I have been trying to avoid those words in my own language recently, but using "primary" and "secondary" ends up

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

On 24/07/2020 10:28, Martin Hoffmann wrote: > Side note: Whenever using "upstream" and "downstream", I’ve pretty much > always first had a half-hour discussion what each means and still later > ran into issues a la "What was downstream again?" Upstream is "towards the source". This works both

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Paul Vixie wrote: > On Thursday, 23 July 2020 18:34:07 UTC Evan Hunt wrote: > > > > I share the desire for perfection, but IMHO the transition from > > "master" to "primary" and "slave" to "secondary" is far enough > > under way and well enough understood at this point that I suspect > > it woul

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

On 23/07/2020 18:44, Tim Wicinski wrote: > Actually, that does make sense. Though we also have to expect that these > existing terminology will not be replaced in the lexicon overnight. > > The Chairs plan on having a few slides on this whole topic, as we've > been thinking about it for some ti

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Hi all, I wanted to point at a recently published (today!) IESG statement -- https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/statement-on-oppressive-exclusionary-language/ which contains: "We wanted to highlight that initial discussions about this topic are taking place in the general area (a dr

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 07:40:25PM +, Paul Vixie wrote: > -1. there are zones lacking primaries, and a secondary which can also > talk to other secondaries gives a second role to those other secondaries. > we must not simply revert to the STD 13 terminology. the role of an > authority server de

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

On Thursday, 23 July 2020 20:10:49 UTC Tony Finch wrote: > Paul Vixie wrote: > > that's why i've recommended we stop talking about "primary servers" or > > "secondary servers", and instead talk about "transfer initiators" and > > "transfer responders" > > Agreed, except that if you include notify

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Paul Vixie wrote: > > that's why i've recommended we stop talking about "primary servers" or > "secondary servers", and instead talk about "transfer initiators" and > "transfer responders" Agreed, except that if you include notify as part of the zone transfer machinery, the question of who is the

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Joe Abley wrote: > > in my opinion we should find new words and not redefine or > overload the common meaning of primary and secondary. Yes. I don't really like primary/secondary because it implies there are only two categories when there aren't. For zone transfers, each server can (and often do

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

On Thursday, 23 July 2020 18:34:07 UTC Evan Hunt wrote: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 01:38:58PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote: > > ... > > > If we are looking for alternative terminology to master/slave (which I am > > not against, because change is a constant and inclusiveness and awareness > > amongst all

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 02:36:42PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote: > Oh, that's something I wasn't aware of. Do you have any examples of > people moving from master/slave to primary/secondary? Aside from RFC 8499: | Slave server: See "Secondary server". | | Master server: See "Primary server". BI

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Hi Evan, On 23 Jul 2020, at 14:34, Evan Hunt wrote: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 01:38:58PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote: >> I don't think primary/secondary are exact substitutes for master/slave in >> the way that those four terms are commonly used today. > [...] >> If we are looking for alternative ter

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 01:38:58PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote: > I don't think primary/secondary are exact substitutes for master/slave in > the way that those four terms are commonly used today. [...] > If we are looking for alternative terminology to master/slave (which I am > not against, because ch

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Joe Abley wrote: > STD 13 assumes a model where there is a single authoritative nameserver which > acts as a source of truth for zone data ("primary"), from which other > nameservers retrieve data and also make it available ("secondary"). As such > they describe the whole of a simple directed gr

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

On 23 Jul 2020, at 13:44, Tim Wicinski wrote: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 1:39 PM Joe Abley > wrote: > > If we are looking for alternative terminology to master/slave (which I am not > against, because change is a constant and inclusiveness and awareness amongst > all

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

On 7/23/2020 1:38 PM, Joe Abley wrote: I do appreciate that STD 13 mentions "master" in some cases as a synonym for "primary"; however, it doesn't mention them in a couple with "slave" and I think this is an example of where low-numbered RFCs sometimes need to be read in their historical contex

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 1:39 PM Joe Abley wrote: > > If we are looking for alternative terminology to master/slave (which I am > not against, because change is a constant and inclusiveness and awareness > amongst all industries is surely to be supported and encouraged) in my > opinion we should f

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

On 23 Jul 2020, at 13:24, Robert Edmonds wrote: > Michael De Roover wrote: >> 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,

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Michael De Roover wrote: > 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 un

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

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 Sen

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

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

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

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 ha

[DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

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 fin