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