Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

I wanted to point at a recently published (today!) IESG statement --
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/statement-on-oppressive-exclusionary-language/
which contains:
"We wanted to highlight that initial discussions about this topic are
taking place in the general area (a draft is slated for discussion in
GENDISPATCH at IETF 108)."

If you are interested in the topic, please attend the GENDISPATCH session...

W

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 5:32 PM Evan Hunt <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 07:40:25PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > -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.
>
> I am visualizing a newly-hired and inexperienced administrator being
> shown the ropes, and told:
>
> - "this server is the master and that one is the slave",
> - "this server is the primary and that one is the secondary", or
> - "this server is the responder and that one is the initiator"
>
> ....and I think either of the first two versions would be clearer and
> more informative to them than the third.
>
> Within the specific context of discussing a zone transfer operation,
> "initiator" and "responder" are clear enough, but in the broader context of
> servers, service providers, and zone configurations, I don't see it as an
> improvement.  (Come to think of it, even in that specific context, there's
> potential confusion in the fact that a primary server could meaningfully be
> said to "initiate" a transfer operation when it sends a NOTIFY.)
>
> On the other hand, you can say "server A acts as primary for server B",
> and it's fairly easy to understand even if technically neither one of
> them is *the* primary.
>
> --
> Evan Hunt -- [e-mail]
> Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop



-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf