Difference between secondary and slave dns servers

[voipfc]

Sam Wilson wrote:
> In article <ejdjo5$d7l$1 at sf1.isc.org>,
>  Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews at isc.org> wrote:
>
> > > smallpond wrote:
> > > > voipfc wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> What is the difference between secondary and slave dns servers?
> > > >>
> > > >> Are they synonyms or are there some subtle diffference between them?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > 1.4.4.2. Slave Servers
> > > > The other authoritative servers, the slave servers (also known as
> > > > secondary servers) ...
> > > >
> > > > from the bind documentation.
> > > >
> > > Yeah, they're pretty much synonymous. If there's any subtle difference
> > > between the two, it's that "slave" is more often seen in a _relational_
> > > context, i.e. one half of the "master/slave" relationship, whereas
> > > "secondary" is more often used when describing a whole infrastructure
> > > (although I have occasionally see the term "primary" being used as a
> > > synonym for "master").
> > >
> > > Let's not forget, also, that a "slave" server can also serve as a
> > > "master" to other, downstream slaves, in a "multi-hop" architecture. So
> > > the use of the term "secondary" gets a little confusing at that point.
> > > What do we call the downstream slaves? "Tertiaries"? And the slaves
> > > downstream from those? Calling them all just "slaves" simplifies things.
> > >
> > > - Kevin
> >
> > 	Also some people thought that "primary" server got all the
> > 	initial queries and the "secondaries" only got queries if
> > 	the "primary" failed.
> >
> > 	"master" / "slave" does not have the same conations.
>
> Also the terms primary and secondary got overloaded when people started
> using them (they're in an RFC but I can't remember which one) for the
> first and subsequent entries in a stub resolver's list of servers.
>
> Sam

Do I take it that the additional servers that you register for your
domain with your domain registrar are also considered authoritative for
the domain?

That is the distinction I want to make. I understand that records can
be updated from one master which will update the records to the slaves
for the sake of convenience, or that the slaves are updated with the
master's whole database through some replication mechanism.

If for instance records are created via a tool that updates all the
servers listed simultaneously without any of the servers getting
updated with other servers records via notify, would there still be a
master/slave relationship between the servers themselves or would that
notion only exist with the domain registrars records.

Does this mean that the slaves have the zones as master zone, only the
SOA still refers to a single master?