S Moonesamy wrote:
A problem is that, even with US local wordings, "slave" does not
specifically mean [removed] slaves unless otherwise mentioned from
the context, which should be the reason why US people, long
after the era of slavery of [removed], coined and accepted the
terminologies with "master/slave".
So, I think it's just temporal instability in US to be better
ignored.
RFC 1034 was written by Mr Mockapetris, ISI, and published in 1987.
There isn't any occurrence of the word "slave" in that technical
specification. The word was introduced in technical specifications
I thank you to have proved my point that saying "slave" has never
been a problem in the then-US-dominant Internet community even
after 1987.
Masataka Ohta
