Rose, Scott W. writes: > FWIW, when we were writing NIST SP 800-81 (the DNSSEC guide), we > were told in the comments (can't remember the commenter) that > primary/secondary should be used to denote roles, and master/slave to > denote a relationship in a transfer. Minor difference, but > technically a primary could be a slave to a hidden master, secondaries > could get zone data via non-AXFR means, etc.
While I don't have any trouble imagining that someone makes that subtle distinction in much the same way my own brain has slightly different connotations for "gray" versus "grey", I'd be surprised to find that it is a commonly held distinction. Of course, now that I've said that I'm prepared for replies telling me I'm wrong, so it won't really be a surprise then. I don't see primary/secondary as being inviolable roles, but only in relation to each other, much the same way as was being said above for master/slave. "Now the student becomes the teacher." Just because a nameserver is getting its data from some other doesn't mean it can't then in turn be the primary nameserver for other secondaries. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
