Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 23 July 2020 17:44 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
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 57D3F3A0B20 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:44:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 ZpusRdbLEfZO for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x230.google.com (mail-oi1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D60323A0B10 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x230.google.com with SMTP id l63so5701321oih.13 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jLJSnvNbdU9xr30I2lbzivsYLwF7NBcM00TNrsLLAUg=; b=LUDfI4aN80vEGrUGVKcJgBLLTr1HSDgWujNoiCrw9AWCR3KqSBRkuHICk6io5V5a0e JH+Xrtdn42hHkFN66rmzQua6OaglSnsnugIvgyQoZYul5FWcoPmi4Tt1H8iMAy2t6Nbd sBMgjKLjZzsIf2vLaSI9Uhf9XQXjNK+8qsyHAaqC+yj0xiKgqlU2Eiw6WmXOB2ErNca8 eTQvBLKb1GnHBQsmFCjYcfpo+6u1zKxp5+Vxsn++F7zbdAE+sPOf5VDg4FDbnH/FPkF2 1u+Lr73dvdLEQgUk9/e2Sg/w1xzkpNwJaHVV6oqOT0nCSnjp8UdclkQCJTtv4Wyyfhra mSRA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jLJSnvNbdU9xr30I2lbzivsYLwF7NBcM00TNrsLLAUg=; b=d5B2mghRetjf+2FfoXX6IJgCG/AkN1JEQ7gwm2rWqIs69aaPwTJlDlMRtAqCv8dYCH nKPYuBNfdsKM5Gz+Ia0uOlqXNS0t/KK2pwak6vGJ/3JcJGRWZjUoDXoJcW/xg+ftCv73 1fJFcAUizBWDO/lp281agbgv4gJ44w8gFzjLvP/IPFap+qO6irp61g06ysNeIbONskAd E+xazGnzpVL2OQtAt7bNn+zH6zbroiduoslKjMzW4p5WVIRUYlt9UJvE12Q/vBtgEORN b2g9CA3u6cVcuxOGHXfY0d1mCQVYl7ApuXfOx8vixuLz0NHD6NG/no+VB/vk0z/U6JQ6 z4IA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531wAqr20J8eAwOUQVp1kdR+4iPiP0eHiY4CPbBGQHUfjVjqDxYC dD9/UKG5XZ65vVPZwJEoXdUZcTDzljIut3iLxDt+62nPyfM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwXAsVLpFLZxZVK9MAupkHFmCZxAbHMoLUlA3BfDM339MQYVKvMm0s7KCDt15yCFNamOrecaJSiZ+DZEaOm/08=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:5158:: with SMTP id f85mr4917803oib.6.1595526268224; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <86c18e80-88ab-5503-f63c-f788766a2675@ghnou.su> <20200723172449.GA371024@mycre.ws> <1C6ACEA9-CCC5-41F5-AEAD-432B48370D12@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <1C6ACEA9-CCC5-41F5-AEAD-432B48370D12@hopcount.ca>
From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 13:44:17 -0400
Message-ID: <CADyWQ+Fisgr3cNoTGiwrAgeEKrFfWEw=jxDCy_vm+Pf7XXE6cA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
Cc: Robert Edmonds <edmonds@mycre.ws>, dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000072893405ab1f68fa"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/AbCC2btqYp_ojPatCTsZoOlgCic>
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 17:44:30 -0000

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 1:39 PM Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> 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 find new words and not redefine or overload the common
> meaning of primary and secondary.
>
>
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 time.

tim