On Apr 14, 2015, at 9:41 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> jedi/padawan
>
> master/dog
These are certainly fun, but probably don't translate as well... :)
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 04:40:07PM -0400,
Ted Lemon wrote
a message of 13 lines which said:
> Master and disciple? ;)
I asked on Twitter and got:
jedi/padawan
master/dog
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinf
On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 12:28 AM, Ralf Weber wrote:
> Yes. I used the term hidden primary in the past, and technically there
> would be no reason for a setup hidden primary -> primary -> secondaries, as
> you have two single point of failure (SPOF) there. I wouldn't deploy that.
> For me these wor
Moin!
> On 02 Apr 2015, at 22:35, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
>> On Apr 2, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Rose, Scott W. wrote:
>> FWIW, when we were writing NIST SP 800-81 (the DNSSEC guide), we were told
>> in the comments (can't remember the commenter) that primary/secondary should
>> be used to denote roles, a
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>
> > On 2 apr 2015, at 21:51, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> >
> > Given this thread, I propose the following for the draft:
>
> Well, I would change things around so that it is more clear primary and
> secondary are the terms to use today, like:
>
On 4/2/15, 22:38, "Paul Vixie" wrote:
>Tony Finch wrote:
>> Re. "primary", it is worth noting the definition of the SOA MNAME
>> field in RFC 1035:
>>
>> MNAME The of the name server that was the
>> original or primary source of data for this zone.
I'm aware of this,
Paul,
On 04/02/2015 04:13 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Apr 2, 2015, at 12:32 AM, Matthijs Mekking
wrote:
Actually I think $DEFAULT_TTL should be in Zones too as it only
exists in zone files.
Sorry I meant $TTL here from RFC 2308. My point is that it is something
that can be set in zone files,
Tony Finch wrote:
> Re. "primary", it is worth noting the definition of the SOA MNAME
> field in RFC 1035:
>
> MNAME The of the name server that was the
> original or primary source of data for this zone.
>
> I get the impression that sometimes people regard a zone as h
Re. "primary", it is worth noting the definition of the SOA MNAME field in RFC
1035:
MNAME The of the name server that was the original or
primary source of data for this zone.
I get the impression that sometimes people regard a zone as having one primary
or master and all its other
On 2 Apr 2015, at 22:41, Edward Lewis wrote:
> I was going to reply with something snippy on this thread, but then
> reading STD 13 and RFC 5936 (AXFR) I noted that
> primary/master/secondary/slave are barely mentioned at all. Hm.
> FWIW, I recall once firmly believing it was master and sla
On 4/2/15, 17:27, "Andrew Sullivan" wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 04:26:41PM -0400, Bob Harold wrote:
>> I always thought of "primary" and "secondary" as the "old" terms used in
>> the BIND 4 manual, with "master" and "slave" as the new terms in the
>>BIND 8
>> or 9 manuals.
>
>I think the thin
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 04:26:41PM -0400, Bob Harold wrote:
> I always thought of "primary" and "secondary" as the "old" terms used in
> the BIND 4 manual, with "master" and "slave" as the new terms in the BIND 8
> or 9 manuals.
I think the thing is you can have multiple masters, but for years
peo
On Apr 2, 2015, at 4:39 PM, Dave Lawrence wrote:
> I don't see primary/secondary as being inviolable roles, but only in
> relation to each other, much the same way as was being said above for
> master/slave. "Now the student becomes the teacher." Just because a
> nameserver is getting its data f
Rose, Scott W. writes:
> FWIW, when we were writing NIST SP 800-81 (the DNSSEC guide), we
> were told in the comments (can't remember the commenter) that
> primary/secondary should be used to denote roles, and master/slave to
> denote a relationship in a transfer. Minor difference, but
> technical
On Apr 2, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Rose, Scott W. wrote:
> FWIW, when we were writing NIST SP 800-81 (the DNSSEC guide), we were told in
> the comments (can't remember the commenter) that primary/secondary should be
> used to denote roles, and master/slave to denote a relationship in a
> transfer. Mi
I always thought of "primary" and "secondary" as the "old" terms used in
the BIND 4 manual, with "master" and "slave" as the new terms in the BIND 8
or 9 manuals.
For cultural reasons, I can see why some prefer primary/secondary.
master/slave is probably more accurate, and widely used in other
repl
> On 2 apr 2015, at 21:51, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> Given this thread, I propose the following for the draft:
Well, I would change things around so that it is more clear primary and
secondary are the terms to use today, like:
Primary servers and secondary servers --- These where historically n
Given this thread, I propose the following for the draft:
Primary servers and secondary servers --- These are synonyms for "master
server" and "slave server",
which were the terms used in the early DNS RFCs, and defined below. The current
common usage has
shifted to "primary" and "secondary".
S
On Apr 2, 2015, at 2:50 PM, Dave Lawrence wrote:
> Paul Hoffman:
>> I added the synonym for slave. How do people feel about "primary"
>> and "master"?
>
> Personally I'm not fond of the master/slave language and avoid the
> terms. I recognize their historic computer use and don't feel the
> nee
Dave Lawrence wrote:
> Paul Hoffman:
>> I added the synonym for slave. How do people feel about "primary"
>> and "master"?
>
> Personally I'm not fond of the master/slave language and avoid the
> terms. I recognize their historic computer use and don't feel the
> need to be preachy about it, but
On Apr 2, 2015, at 2:50 PM, Dave Lawrence wrote:
> Personally I'm not fond of the master/slave language and avoid the
> terms. I recognize their historic computer use and don't feel the
> need to be preachy about it, but in my own speech I use
> primary/secondary.
Same here. I would go a bit f
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Dave Lawrence wrote:
> Paul Hoffman:
> > I added the synonym for slave. How do people feel about "primary"
> > and "master"?
>
> Personally I'm not fond of the master/slave language and avoid the
> terms. I recognize their historic computer use and don't feel the
> On 2 apr 2015, at 20:50, Dave Lawrence wrote:
>
> Paul Hoffman:
>> I added the synonym for slave. How do people feel about "primary"
>> and "master"?
>
> Personally I'm not fond of the master/slave language and avoid the
> terms. I recognize their historic computer use and don't feel the
> n
Paul Hoffman:
> I added the synonym for slave. How do people feel about "primary"
> and "master"?
Personally I'm not fond of the master/slave language and avoid the
terms. I recognize their historic computer use and don't feel the
need to be preachy about it, but in my own speech I use
primary/se
On Apr 2, 2015, at 12:32 AM, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
> Actually I think $DEFAULT_TTL should be in Zones too as it only exists
> in zone files.
This does not seem to be a commonly used term, does it?
>>> Should we also define zone enumeration?
>>
>> Only if we agree on a definition. Proposal?
>
Paul,
On 04/01/2015 08:46 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Apr 1, 2015, at 1:02 AM, Matthijs Mekking
wrote:
In section 3 (DNS Message Format) the last three paragraphs
discusses "default TTL", Glue records and Referrals. I wonder if
that belongs in the section about DNS Message Format. To me it
soun
On Apr 1, 2015, at 1:02 AM, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
> In section 3 (DNS Message Format) the last three paragraphs discusses
> "default TTL", Glue records and Referrals. I wonder if that belongs in the
> section about DNS Message Format. To me it sounds like it is more suitable to
> be put in th
Hi wg,
I have reviewed the DNS terminology draft and have some comments.
1.
In section 3 (DNS Message Format) the last three paragraphs discusses
"default TTL", Glue records and Referrals. I wonder if that belongs in
the section about DNS Message Format. To me it sounds like it is more
suita
28 matches
Mail list logo
