[Non-DoD Source] Re: BIND Masters and slaves

DeCaro, James John (Jim) CIV DISA FE (USA) james.j.decaro3.civ at mail.mil
Mon Jun 15 18:00:53 UTC 2020

Or you can call the slave servers 'secondary' servers.  

Jim DeCaro
Systems Administrator
Windows and Unix Server Operations
FE222/DoDNet Service Section
Defense Enclave Services Directorate
☎ 301-225-8180 
☎ 301-375-8180 
James.j.decaro3.civ at mail.mil
James.j.decaro3.civ at mail.smil.mil

"If you always do what you always did you will always get what you always got."

-----Original Message-----
From: bind-users <bind-users-bounces at lists.isc.org> On Behalf Of Michael De Roover
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 1:32 PM
To: bind-users at lists.isc.org
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: BIND Masters and slaves

All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser. 


I concur with this. I'm still fairly new to BIND and DNS myself. I maintain 7 name servers (3 internal, 4 external) and master does signify to me that this is the server in control of the zone files for the other ones in that pool. The slaves are pretty much that to me, they take the zone files and apply them while not having any further control over the zone files themselves. In my external name servers it also goes paired with authority - slave authorities that are authoritative to the internet but slaves in that they replicate from an internal master. This is not something you'd see in real slavery, signifying that this is mere technical jargon. Is it a heavy term? Yes. Should we support "black lives matter" and condemn the completely egregious actions committed by the police officers towards George Floyd? Absolutely, and I hope that the former officers get convicted for not just manslaughter but murder, and that more protests will emerge (minus the plundering which was the case here in Brussels).

However, changing a name and going for censorship of technical jargon which will only confuse newcomers who will now face duplicate nomenclature changes NOTHING. George Floyd wouldn't have been able to survive just because we give things a different name. Instead we'd border closer to censorship which we had during the wars, and still do in heavily oppressed countries like North Korea, China etc. It's ironic that what these people are pushing for in practice is exactly the thing they seemingly seek to eradicate.

There is another relevant case where GitHub will apparently replace master branches in all their repositories. I'm really glad to be unaffected with my Gitea server. I may have to adjust my repository mirrors from GitHub however. For GitHub users, that change will likely break every one of their repositories that defaults to master and require adjustments from GitHub users of which many might not even know what branches are. That's the real impact of that and I find it deeply worrying.

I do not want such a thing to happen to BIND just to please some people with large followings on Twitter who other than that, often have no affiliation with the project whatsoever.

On 6/15/20 12:53 AM, Vinícius Ferrão via bind-users wrote:

	ISC had a statement about it a time ago: Caution-https://twitter.com/ISCdotORG/status/942815837299253248 < Caution-https://twitter.com/ISCdotORG/status/942815837299253248 > 

	You can now call primary and secondary zones. 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.

	For the newcomers it’s not OK to break years of terms, software and documentation just because some people can’t handle terms like master and slave. Slavery still exists today and making the word disappear will not solve the issue.

	And you’re correct about the BDSM thing. It’s a waste of time, efforts and lines of code.

Met vriendelijke groet / Best regards,
Michael De Roover

More information about the bind-users mailing list