Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

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 
data.

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.

Mike