Hi Mike,
On 11/16/21, 4:42 PM, "Mike Fox" <[email protected]> wrote:
Thank you for the update Acee. If I am required to make the change before
the RFC gets updated (which sounds like it could be a while) I'd like to
pick terms that are likely to line up with what it eventually changes to
but at this point I'd be guessing. The usual suggested substitutions
along the lines of manager/worker don't seem to work well considering how
the database exchange works, so I'm thinking if it's up to me I change it
to speaker/responder but I'd like to get feedback on the terms others are
using.. if any other OSPF products have tackled this already I'd be
curious what terms they adopted.
If I interpret it correctly, the Knodel draft suggests "primary/secondary".
However, this is not an RFC yet.
Thanks,
Acee
Mike
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise Network Solutions Architecture & Design
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research Triangle Park, NC USA
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]>
To: "Mike Fox" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Date: 11/16/2021 04:10 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Lsr] Issues with master/slave terminology
in OSPF
The IETF is already applying these standards to new documents.
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-knodel-terminology-07.txt
At some point, I'd expect that someone with the time and energy will
produce a single document that updates all the existing documents using
the updated terminology. At least that would be my preference since doing
BIS versions of all these documents is not desirable unless this is being
done for other purposes. For example, it would not make sense to do an RFC
2328 BIS unless we were going to also correct all the Errata and go
through a full review cycle.
Thanks,
Acee
On 11/16/21, 3:55 PM, "Lsr on behalf of Mike Fox" <[email protected]
on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
Many companies in the industry including mine are undergoing
initiatives
to replace offensive terminology in IT. One of the targeted terms is
master/slave, which is used in OSPF database exchange and the terms
appear
in various documentation and displays for our OSPF routing daemon. I'm
still waiting on guidance on whether or not industry-standard terms
get a
pass, but it's not looking good. Has anyone else encountered this
issue
and if so how have you handled it? If I'm going to need to change to
terminology that does not match the RFC I'd like to be consistent with
what others are doing.
Thank you,
Mike
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBM Enterprise Network Solutions Architecture & Design
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research Triangle Park, NC USA
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
