Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 27 Jul 2020, at 19:46, Salz, Rich <rsalz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


  The metaphor has to allow arbitrary behaviour of the first stage and zero choice to anything but obedience for the second stage.

It can be explained in the prose, the words themselves needn't convey that.  To me, and I have no knowledge if that is your intent, this is a way of setting up the discussion so that changing the terms is impossible.


No, I am describing the behaviour of one of the most fundamental hardware components in a computer.


It is the primary technique for crossing synchronisation boundaries.

Interestingly when someone pointed out that slaves occasionally mutinied that aligned the metaphor with greater precision because occasionally the data changes exactly on a clock edge and the flip flop cannot decide which state to adopt in which case it sometimes oscillates for an indeterminate time with catastrophic consequences for the logic. Flip-flop metastability is mitigated by some techniques such as multiple ranking.

The historic term is master-slave, and whilst I condemn this behaviour in humans, it is an accurate metaphor for this electronic construct and the electronics is not offended by this required behaviour.

Stewart

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux