Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

["libor.peltan" <[e-mail]>]

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.
>