BIND Masters and slaves

[Tony Finch]

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.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot at dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Plymouth: Cyclonic 3 to 5. Mainly slight. Thundery showers. Good, occasionally
poor.