[DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Michael De Roover <ctrl@ghnou.su> Wed, 22 July 2020 21:19 UTC

Return-Path: <ctrl@ghnou.su>
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 294183A09B5 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 14:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, 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 GTf9WAx3pddh for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 14:19:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nixmagic.com (e3.nixmagic.com [212.237.5.239]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1F7E3A0954 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 14:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.10.17] (ctrl1.lan [192.168.10.17]) by nixmagic.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C42B10194 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 23:01:19 +0000 (UTC)
To: dnsop@ietf.org
From: Michael De Roover <ctrl@ghnou.su>
Message-ID: <86c18e80-88ab-5503-f63c-f788766a2675@ghnou.su>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 01:00:43 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Qi6k-fDFmsLSgQzoH1DuhodfsK8>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 14:22:32 -0700
Subject: [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: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 21:20:55 -0000

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.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groet / Best regards,
Michael De Roover