BIND Masters and slaves

[Ben Lavender]

The terminology is fairly misleading, as in the slave is not doing the 
work on-behalf of or instruction of the the master. But there is ways 
for the master to influence the slaves; such as "allow-transfer".

I don't see the big issue with making a terminology change in this case.

On 15/06/2020 15:38, Tony Finch wrote:
> Vinícius Ferrão via bind-users <bind-users at lists.isc.org> wrote:
>> But the prevalence of terms are still master and slave. And I really
>> hope this thing of changing nomenclatures doesn’t go any further due to
>> political correctness.
> "Political correctness" just means being considerate for other people,
> especially people who do not have many of the advantages we might take for
> granted.
>
> In any case, master/slave is bad terminology because it is actively
> misleading. It suggests that zone transfers to downstream servers are
> under the control of the upstream servers, which is definitely not the
> case. And it suggests a binary categorization of servers which is also
> wrong, because zone transfers often form a multi-level cascade between
> servers that perform several different functions. It's better to talk
> about update servers, signing servers, zone transfer servers, public or
> private or stealth authoritative servers. For zone transfers it's better
> to talk about which servers are upstream and downstream of each other in
> the distribution network.
>
> You should find that your writing is easier to understand, both for
> experts and non-experts, if you don't use the bad old terminology.
>
> Tony.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list
>
> ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.
>
>
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users at lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users