Re: axfr-clarify's fraudulent claims of consensus

[gson@nominum.com (Andreas Gustafsson)]

Robert Elz writes:
> That related to some of the language in the draft I believe (I was there,
> and I think was one of those who supported this position).

Hmm, this seems a bit different from Randy's recollection.  But anyway...

> Some of that
> I still believe could be cleaned up to be nicer.   It doesn't relate to
> any of the substance though, nor particularly to BIND 9, but rather to use
> of terms like "slave" and "master" which are (recent) BIND inventions to
> refer to what the DNS (1034/1035) has always used the words "secondary"
> and "primary" for.

These terms were defined in RFC1996 and are also used in RFC2136, and
they seem clearer than "primary" and "secondary" when describing
topologies where a slave server is itself acting as a master for other
slaves.  If you like, I could add a reference like "This document uses
the terms master and slave as defined in RFC1996".

> There's a bit more like that I think as well.  None
> of it really matters, though the doc would be better if it was all fixed.

I don't recall seeing any specific suggestions for changes, and I did
not attend the Yokohama meeting.  Could you please them to me or
namedroppers?
-- 
Andreas Gustafsson, gson@nominum.com