Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

[Paul Vixie <[e-mail]>]

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