Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

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

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD04A3A0A93 for <>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 01:47:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mPYVwd1P-oIh for <>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 01:47:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:1488:800:400::400]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A62CA3A0A90 for <>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 01:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7A0C31409A4; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:47:42 +0200 (CEST)
To:, Michael De Roover <>
References: <>
From: "libor.peltan" <>
Message-ID: <>
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: <>
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: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 08:47:49 -0000


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 

I haven't heard about "main".



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.