Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> Thu, 23 July 2020 18:36 UTC

Return-Path: <jabley@hopcount.ca>
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 1D59E3A0C77 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:36:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hopcount.ca
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 t4vccDhZndol for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82c.google.com (mail-qt1-x82c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10DB43A0C67 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82c.google.com with SMTP id t23so2034308qto.3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hopcount.ca; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=dVIrShFCiobo0h3RvOZ/XXZaW5xILkZdXZBZZ7JHPv0=; b=XTUXfeZvRmRhqWklK2UgpJ93vRdz+c+3G2I6eduvIqrEW+gXQT7URGPODURYoeSuip GA5RaySOjRbKwrLEUd2bBlJt2fmbegeBJGURnB5aFfapXMsVb7Ejov2yg/eEVI09Wlkh JuKvf/K9UHvtmX7hPHk8LihN3IcZSlgxH9TYo=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=dVIrShFCiobo0h3RvOZ/XXZaW5xILkZdXZBZZ7JHPv0=; b=i9b8PVprfJd3PLXRa3EvHZVEhvQi5EdSK4G3L8N344QKwaa7bLvSfoLTiJNvCNlQGd qTMtuFFFflA9iPT/cWrLAQayfxsHN5jRMVcmBmu6ZwbP3WV62Pcz96TX6MWHP3Lt2ou8 5z00GAJakiLyv5G583j3fFLuXFCLh3gE0XuCHSBNOmR1/8vXufMsBbhaFYlr3vNcJKzE FdeytcVEJrEL5naXAEceH1XdljhkAORZXWW7VSnmAp/bwztFQt9Af4TkVPp65630VcfJ 0uOMTWZUCi6dlbHN4hTSe7gBpX2WSJhZEfzdMjQaXlEZL82LGDOLj1WwYfFSiKbdz9jD 4eMg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5302xw4zpnnIHg7sZKsA2Lr1fOsXS+C/7zT+qHecCCKE48Erguk0 h1SuNsEaUSePXck93iR47CdVkQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwlZ1pDrMAehVzm/C0Do/LHsekrSdlJpa7abpevyshBW3KHBYq+g5xKrkgljoOhBH+m6zYsnA==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4747:: with SMTP id k7mr4166605qtp.76.1595529404929; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.149] (24-246-23-138.cable.teksavvy.com. [24.246.23.138]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h24sm1634003qkk.72.2020.07.23.11.36.43 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <20200723183407.GB34140@isc.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 14:36:42 -0400
Cc: Robert Edmonds <edmonds@mycre.ws>, dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A7659ECC-2D7E-4ED2-868B-0A40C225425D@hopcount.ca>
References: <86c18e80-88ab-5503-f63c-f788766a2675@ghnou.su> <20200723172449.GA371024@mycre.ws> <1C6ACEA9-CCC5-41F5-AEAD-432B48370D12@hopcount.ca> <20200723183407.GB34140@isc.org>
To: Evan Hunt <each@isc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/lxmxuWuFVibAoyEgboYvZplB7XY>
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 18:36:47 -0000

Hi Evan,

On 23 Jul 2020, at 14:34, Evan Hunt <each@isc.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 01:38:58PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
>> I don't think primary/secondary are exact substitutes for master/slave in
>> the way that those four terms are commonly used today.
> [...]
>> 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.

Oh, that's something I wasn't aware of. Do you have any examples of people moving from master/slave to primary/secondary?


Joe