Honestly I wouldn't change it at all. I mean.. why is the use of master/slave controversial anyway? And how would changing a name in technical nomenclature change this?
Particularly older documentation is something I'm concerned about, and having to adjust any current documentation to accomodate this change, as well as code and config files. And hearing the reasoning behind master/slave... I think that it coming from the cylinders in a car's brake and clutch system is actually quite amazing. Personally I don't see anything controversial in it. If anything I find it intriguing. On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 01:04 +0000, Paul Vixie wrote: > i borrowed the initiator/responder terminology from iSCSI, and it > seems > intuitive to me. this isn't a client/server situation, because a > given host > might be both a client and a server, in a multi-level transfer graph. > we need > terminology that describes the transaction, and not the host or > hosts > participating in that transaction. we stopped using > requester/responder when > the op codes stopped being limited to just QUERY and IQUERY and > STATUS. (in > other words, UPDATE is technically a request, but not notionally so.) > > what's your proposal? > -- Met vriendelijke groet / Best regards, Michael De Roover _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
