Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Evan Hunt <each@isc.org> Thu, 23 July 2020 18:34 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 A11063A0C78 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:34:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 dUCKKUEU0CsK for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:34:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [149.20.64.53]) (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 504303A0C67 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [149.20.1.88]) (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 3A6143AB006; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 18:34:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix, from userid 10292) id 295A344407; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 18:34:07 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 18:34:07 +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: <20200723183407.GB34140@isc.org>
References: <86c18e80-88ab-5503-f63c-f788766a2675@ghnou.su> <20200723172449.GA371024@mycre.ws> <1C6ACEA9-CCC5-41F5-AEAD-432B48370D12@hopcount.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1C6ACEA9-CCC5-41F5-AEAD-432B48370D12@hopcount.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Pffv30MvMyKDHOe1k9yQD9-9Rk4>
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 18:34:12 -0000

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 01:38:58PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> I don't think primary/secondary are exact substitutes for master/slave in
> the way that those four terms are commonly used today.
[...]
> 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.

I share the desire for perfection, but IMHO the transition from "master"
to "primary" and "slave" to "secondary" is far enough under way and well
enough understood at this point that I suspect it would be easier to add
modifiers when necessary than to try to deploy new vocabulary entirely.

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