I'm all a bit lost here. Perfectly understandable that the word 'Slave' needs to be dropped ASAP. Waiting for the official committee might be like watching paint dry.
But what is wrong with 'Master' - ie Master Craftsman, Master Boatmaker, Master Baker, therefore Master Clock. And doesn't it correctly describe what it's function is ? -----Original Message----- From: Richard Cochran [mailto:richardcoch...@gmail.com] Sent: Donnerstag, 20. August 2020 19:07 To: Vladimir Oltean Cc: linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH RFC 0/1] Introduce inclusive terminology On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 06:45:37PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > What I don't get is where is the need for linuxptp to "take the lead" on > this topic? see next answer... > What if the terms on which IEEE 1588 settles are not the terms in your > mind ("source"/"sink")? Because linuxptp is widely deployed, what we do could very well influence the committee work. > Will there be a third set of names for clocks > and ports? For anything that affects protocol correctness, then we'll map the internal terms to the official ones. However, if I'm not wrong, the strings "master" and "slave" are not part of protocol at all. > What about a sort of internationalization support in linuxptp, then > anybody could call "master" and "slave" whatever they feel like. That won't work for program identifiers. Thanks, Richard _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
