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(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com