IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Evan Hunt <each@isc.org> Thu, 23 July 2020 19:24 UTC

Return-Path: <each@isc.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 856BC3A0CE8 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 12:24:16 -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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 dufKd-KhS1o9 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 12:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) (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 56B413A0CE6 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 12:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:4f8:1:f::88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9432A3AB002; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 19:24:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix, from userid 10292) id 67A9C44415; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 19:24:10 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 19:24:10 +0000
From: Evan Hunt <each@isc.org>
To: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
Cc: Robert Edmonds <edmonds@mycre.ws>, dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20200723192410.GC34140@isc.org>
References: <86c18e80-88ab-5503-f63c-f788766a2675@ghnou.su> <20200723172449.GA371024@mycre.ws> <1C6ACEA9-CCC5-41F5-AEAD-432B48370D12@hopcount.ca> <20200723183407.GB34140@isc.org> <A7659ECC-2D7E-4ED2-868B-0A40C225425D@hopcount.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <A7659ECC-2D7E-4ED2-868B-0A40C225425D@hopcount.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/OIWhgEJtD_1Y4bc2jIMURuRJErw>
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 19:24:17 -0000

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 02:36:42PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> Oh, that's something I wasn't aware of. Do you have any examples of
> people moving from master/slave to primary/secondary?

Aside from RFC 8499:

| Slave server:  See "Secondary server".
|
| Master server:  See "Primary server".

... BIND added primary/secondary as synonyms for master/slave in our
configuration syntax several years ago and have been progressively updating
our documentation to prefer those terms ever since.  The upcoming release
pretty much completes that process.

-- 
Evan Hunt -- each@isc.org
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email