Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

"libor.peltan" <libor.peltan@nic.cz> Thu, 23 July 2020 08:47 UTC

Return-Path: <libor.peltan@nic.cz>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD04A3A0A93 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 01:47:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mPYVwd1P-oIh for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 01:47:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [IPv6:2001:1488:800:400::400]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A62CA3A0A90 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 01:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.105] (unknown [82.202.71.9]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7A0C31409A4; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:47:42 +0200 (CEST)
To: dnsop@ietf.org, Michael De Roover <ctrl@ghnou.su>
References: <86c18e80-88ab-5503-f63c-f788766a2675@ghnou.su>
From: "libor.peltan" <libor.peltan@nic.cz>
Message-ID: <98d1a954-db22-2a2e-490e-0a9b1208843a@nic.cz>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:47:42 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <86c18e80-88ab-5503-f63c-f788766a2675@ghnou.su>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/5sIQW8X0k9xKWVVNQ0ma0R4UgtQ>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 08:47:49 -0000

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 haven't heard about "main".

BR,

Libor

Dne 22.07.20 v 01:00 Michael De Roover napsal(a):
> 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 find it strange that in the RFC 
> this is only acknowledged, rather than defined into its own term and 
> prioritized.
>
> 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 
> unnecessary and harmful, as it creates confusion while merely 
> redefining the same. It also unnecessarily obsoletes older 
> documentation. Newcomers to the DNS could become confused. I was very 
> confused when I recently built my own DNS server infrastructure.
>
> The discussion regarding these tends to get emotional and political, 
> but I feel like these should be kept outside of standards bodies. Just 
> like we are still stuck with 29.97 Hz refresh rates on televisions 
> from implementations half a century ago, these changes could also 
> affect those half a century from now on.
>