On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 04:40:07PM -0400,
Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote
a message of 13 lines which said:
Master and disciple? ;)
I asked on Twitter and got:
jedi/padawan
master/dog
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
On Apr 14, 2015, at 9:41 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer bortzme...@nic.fr wrote:
jedi/padawan
master/dog
These are certainly fun, but probably don't translate as well... :)
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 12:28 AM, Ralf Weber d...@fl1ger.de wrote:
Yes. I used the term hidden primary in the past, and technically there
would be no reason for a setup hidden primary - primary - secondaries, as
you have two single point of failure (SPOF) there. I wouldn't deploy that.
For me
Paul,
On 04/02/2015 04:13 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Apr 2, 2015, at 12:32 AM, Matthijs Mekking
matth...@pletterpet.nl wrote:
Actually I think $DEFAULT_TTL should be in Zones too as it only
exists in zone files.
Sorry I meant $TTL here from RFC 2308. My point is that it is something
that can
On 4/2/15, 22:38, Paul Vixie p...@redbarn.org wrote:
Tony Finch wrote:
Re. primary, it is worth noting the definition of the SOA MNAME
field in RFC 1035:
MNAME The domain-name of the name server that was the
original or primary source of data for this zone.
I'm
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Patrik Fältström p...@frobbit.se wrote:
On 2 apr 2015, at 21:51, Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote:
Given this thread, I propose the following for the draft:
Well, I would change things around so that it is more clear primary and
secondary are the
Moin!
On 02 Apr 2015, at 22:35, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Apr 2, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Rose, Scott W. scott.r...@nist.gov wrote:
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
Paul,
On 04/01/2015 08:46 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Apr 1, 2015, at 1:02 AM, Matthijs Mekking matth...@pletterpet.nl
wrote:
In section 3 (DNS Message Format) the last three paragraphs
discusses default TTL, Glue records and Referrals. I wonder if
that belongs in the section about DNS Message
Given this thread, I propose the following for the draft:
Primary servers and secondary servers --- These are synonyms for master
server and slave server,
which were the terms used in the early DNS RFCs, and defined below. The current
common usage has
shifted to primary and secondary.
Slave
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 04:26:41PM -0400, Bob Harold wrote:
I always thought of primary and secondary as the old terms used in
the BIND 4 manual, with master and slave as the new terms in the BIND 8
or 9 manuals.
I think the thing is you can have multiple masters, but for years
people referred
On 4/2/15, 17:27, Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 04:26:41PM -0400, Bob Harold wrote:
I always thought of primary and secondary as the old terms used in
the BIND 4 manual, with master and slave as the new terms in the
BIND 8
or 9 manuals.
I think the
On 2 apr 2015, at 21:51, Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote:
Given this thread, I propose the following for the draft:
Well, I would change things around so that it is more clear primary and
secondary are the terms to use today, like:
Primary servers and secondary servers --- These
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
On Apr 2, 2015, at 4:39 PM, Dave Lawrence t...@dd.org wrote:
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
On Apr 2, 2015, at 2:50 PM, Dave Lawrence t...@dd.org wrote:
Paul Hoffman:
I added the synonym for slave. How do people feel about primary
and master?
Personally I'm not fond of the master/slave language and avoid the
terms. I recognize their historic computer use and don't feel the
need
I always thought of primary and secondary as the old terms used in
the BIND 4 manual, with master and slave as the new terms in the BIND 8
or 9 manuals.
For cultural reasons, I can see why some prefer primary/secondary.
master/slave is probably more accurate, and widely used in other
replication
Tony Finch wrote:
Re. primary, it is worth noting the definition of the SOA MNAME
field in RFC 1035:
MNAME The domain-name of the name server that was the
original or primary source of data for this zone.
I get the impression that sometimes people regard a zone
On 2 Apr 2015, at 22:41, Edward Lewis edward.le...@icann.org wrote:
I was going to reply with something snippy on this thread, but then
reading STD 13 and RFC 5936 (AXFR) I noted that
primary/master/secondary/slave are barely mentioned at all. Hm.
FWIW, I recall once firmly believing it
On 2 apr 2015, at 20:50, Dave Lawrence t...@dd.org wrote:
Paul Hoffman:
I added the synonym for slave. How do people feel about primary
and master?
Personally I'm not fond of the master/slave language and avoid the
terms. I recognize their historic computer use and don't feel the
need
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Dave Lawrence t...@dd.org wrote:
Paul Hoffman:
I added the synonym for slave. How do people feel about primary
and master?
Personally I'm not fond of the master/slave language and avoid the
terms. I recognize their historic computer use and don't feel the
On Apr 2, 2015, at 2:50 PM, Dave Lawrence t...@dd.org wrote:
Personally I'm not fond of the master/slave language and avoid the
terms. I recognize their historic computer use and don't feel the
need to be preachy about it, but in my own speech I use
primary/secondary.
Same here. I would go
Dave Lawrence wrote:
Paul Hoffman:
I added the synonym for slave. How do people feel about primary
and master?
Personally I'm not fond of the master/slave language and avoid the
terms. I recognize their historic computer use and don't feel the
need to be preachy about it, but in my own
On Apr 2, 2015, at 12:32 AM, Matthijs Mekking matth...@pletterpet.nl wrote:
Actually I think $DEFAULT_TTL should be in Zones too as it only exists
in zone files.
This does not seem to be a commonly used term, does it?
Should we also define zone enumeration?
Only if we agree on a
Paul Hoffman:
I added the synonym for slave. How do people feel about primary
and master?
Personally I'm not fond of the master/slave language and avoid the
terms. I recognize their historic computer use and don't feel the
need to be preachy about it, but in my own speech I use
On Apr 2, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Rose, Scott W. scott.r...@nist.gov wrote:
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
On Apr 1, 2015, at 1:02 AM, Matthijs Mekking matth...@pletterpet.nl wrote:
In section 3 (DNS Message Format) the last three paragraphs discusses
default TTL, Glue records and Referrals. I wonder if that belongs in the
section about DNS Message Format. To me it sounds like it is more suitable
26 matches
Mail list logo
