Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Michael StJohns <> Thu, 23 July 2020 17:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE0543A0C68 for <>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:54:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id peCWqXP0mbyv for <>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:54:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A0623A0CAE for <>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:54:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id m9so2953639qvx.5 for <>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:54:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=E4I6MRpM9PXdbFOM1V9hEFoPCezaG+e6CxJr+rQUd8w=; b=iAl51a0FLSxAddKef2dmn37tzmB0V2SQ0S6ao2OVKSCzWx3baP7EVwiChlko/mVoUz 23Pfg5N9egHXtyloQnASduWgeJ3IcDVyK4LKcq+rw5lbMVibema0of4vRBuL5Stxmtyp lMHQxYQvhvLYkKl48jY5V3wmDJCT8bcn6cM3jCwHjVTF3aVs5ke/8MHY2gJNfNCfoL2N Qxr5ETh3PdAvFOkPkLoaoukVyJpe/BzD3BGPOv/wREcNHE+fKV1hRn/xNWc5k9KX05Ky 8ZAonVp0zkqqnBEk/wfE1O695HRGt02zHX8g3pifAMVbsjW6ex1qkteAQ7NHqwjUuqUt MgqQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=E4I6MRpM9PXdbFOM1V9hEFoPCezaG+e6CxJr+rQUd8w=; b=Jam2MCDM0npz/l48DBskNp0VQoEeoCRz3w4cU0G5UN7+fwmb0z2rsd9fgWGlaioPD/ Ha3jyu6YFe4a83WeDrSZ/Wu1hwaKntAHKcIEzZP5RkdR1lMTGE9du6gsPHnRbGG/xKOC P4aUkYbUTnNGTDbqj2+7782qhZf3DYI8huIkdd7yOBKQ5Rw/JMC0i4TLwuOxO4e/iUNf mb8S1e3Voc+SgMlCLNiser/eDmBu8ac4xLksl1w5yA9YBpv7Wf/M9fE3wYby42E/1TsB EsjyHDVeKe6TyLZbsztOUTpxOHdpDNTpCMuy/0SvdK8FyNNiusWPOo/AWWx0A9uHcVW1 BYXQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533n2Bl5h0UT6l1MBhzGoroM5AJUfy6Mz2pmEWmMK7WHe3SYLgAt hsCuJCUIuuBWUe5FovrpaVEumgtQxgk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyTbn4osAR1Qtus7KXWd8p58xtdHV1OzvU/tlxwwAFIjYVI6lSDi2Sn0g8D4nDhewp2rMJkYg==
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:42a5:: with SMTP id e5mr5949192qvr.67.1595526840768; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:54:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id 84sm3486078qkf.136.2020. for <> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:54:00 -0700 (PDT)
References: <> <> <>
From: Michael StJohns <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 13:53:59 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 17:54:10 -0000

On 7/23/2020 1:38 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
> I do appreciate that STD 13 mentions "master" in some cases as a synonym for "primary"; however, it doesn't mention them in a couple with "slave" and I think this is an example of where low-numbered RFCs sometimes need to be read in their historical context rather than with slavish (ho ho) devotion to individual words. I realise that RFC 8499 does the same. I think common usage is usefully different, however (e.g. see various implementations' configuration syntax).
> 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.

One of the alternate meanings for "master" is "authoritative" (e.g. 
"master reference", "zone master file", "master recording").   
Unfortunately, that would have us end up with "the authoritative 
authoritative server" which contains the authoritative copy of the zone 

I think we can find alternatives for "master/slave", I'm not sure we can 
find a good alternative to "master" in isolation nor in reference to the 
data sources.