IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Terminology: "primary master"

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Thu, 23 November 2017 18:16 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.org>
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 1810E124D6C for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Nov 2017 10:16:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 IAzUWD0xlRvr for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Nov 2017 10:16:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [24.104.150.213]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E8C11200C5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Nov 2017 10:16:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.31.98.14] (unknown [4.35.165.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EF7AF61FA2; Thu, 23 Nov 2017 18:16:28 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <5A171079.8010401@redbarn.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 10:16:25 -0800
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.20 (Windows/20171012)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
CC: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <20171123.121943.1115399549648860645.he@uninett.no> <34F896BC-B044-4E46-AC60-8562A8BE782F@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <34F896BC-B044-4E46-AC60-8562A8BE782F@hopcount.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/DjzDBeZjvHq8Kn-UlDEox6jPr0g>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Terminology: "primary master"
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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 Nov 2017 18:16:32 -0000


Joe Abley wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2017, at 06:19, Havard Eidnes<he@uninett.no>  wrote:
>...
> While a single slave sending zone transfer requests to a single
> master is still a valid example of such a graph, I think it's more a
> degenerate case than the usual case today. In that sense the idea of
> using a single master (which I think is implied by "primary master"
> and a name published in a single MNAME field) is defensibly archaic.

you need to get out more. by zone count, the IETF methodolody dominates 
the field. microsoft's AD approach, and other multi-master approaches, 
are used by the big guys, but they do not handle most zones.

> My perspective may not be universal, of course, but that's what I see.

this mailing list demonstrates the same myopia on many topics, as if a 
lack of evidence is itself evidence of nonexistence. that's just not so.

-- 
P Vixie

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email