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 > 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.
That's an interesting distinction, but would be better made using different words. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
