Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

[Paul Vixie <[e-mail]>]

On Thursday, 23 July 2020 18:34:07 UTC Evan Hunt wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 01:38:58PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> > ...
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I share the desire for perfection, but IMHO the transition from "master"
> to "primary" and "slave" to "secondary" is far enough under way and well
> enough understood at this point that I suspect it would be easier to add
> modifiers when necessary than to try to deploy new vocabulary entirely.

-1. there are zones lacking primaries, and a secondary which can also talk to 
other secondaries gives a second role to those other secondaries. we must not 
simply revert to the STD 13 terminology. the role of an authority server 
depends on what zone we're talking about and what other server they're talking 
to. that's why i've recommended we stop talking about "primary servers" or 
"secondary servers", and instead talk about "transfer initiators" and 
"transfer responders", where the transfer pertains to a zone and the initiator 
or responder is a server's role with respect to that zone and that transfer.

-- 
Paul