Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Thu, 23 July 2020 09:01 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 EB8A93A0AA9 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 02:01:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=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 JD7YQku4_4KQ for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 02:01:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cd::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD1563A0AA7 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 02:01:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linux-9daj.localnet (dhcp-183.access.rits.tisf.net [24.104.150.183]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (1024 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9F46CC3F16; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 09:01:36 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
To: dnsop@ietf.org, Michael De Roover <ctrl@ghnou.su>
Cc: "libor.peltan" <libor.peltan@nic.cz>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 08:50:06 +0000
Message-ID: <5303244.dBo8Fx6Cfl@linux-9daj>
Organization: none
In-Reply-To: <98d1a954-db22-2a2e-490e-0a9b1208843a@nic.cz>
References: <86c18e80-88ab-5503-f63c-f788766a2675@ghnou.su> <98d1a954-db22-2a2e-490e-0a9b1208843a@nic.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/RFbV_nBJdJSvBhByxH30K7zvSxw>
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 09:01:40 -0000

On Thursday, 23 July 2020 08:47:42 UTC libor.peltan wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> just a factual comment.
> 
> While primary/secondary = master/slave is indeed a recent transition of
> terms among DNS community, and I agree that this should be handled
> carefully when writing new RFCs,

i introduced the master/slave terminology in rfc 2136, because i needed names 
for the roles in an AXFR/IXFR transaction, and the zone transfer hierarchy 
could be more than one layer deep, such that a server might initiate some 
AXFR/IXFR's to the "primary master" but then respond to AXFR/IXFR's from other 
servers. in retrospect i should have chosen the terms, "transfer initiator" 
and "transfer responder". however, the hydraulic brake and clutch systems in 
my car had "master cylinders" and "slave cylinders", and so i did not think i 
was either inventing a new use for the words "master" and "slave", or that my 
use of them for this purpose would be controversial. i was naive, and i 
suggest that we revisit the terminology we use in all our distributed systems, 
starting with DNS zone transfer roles.

> ...
> 
> BR,
> 
> Libor

-- 
Paul