Steven Luong (sluong) <sluong@...>
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
The list has a good number of suggestions. In 802.1ax spec, they use the term aggregator and member link. So I am inclined to stick to aggregator/member unless someone finds that it is unacceptable.
From: Ed Warnicke <hagbard@...>
Date: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 9:45 AM
To: "Jerome Tollet (jtollet)" <jtollet@...>
Cc: "Steven Luong (sluong)" <sluong@...>, "Dave Barach (dbarach)" <dbarach@...>, "Kinsella, Ray" <mdr@...>, Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...>, "vpp-dev@..." <vpp-dev@...>, "tsc@..." <tsc@...>,
"Ed Warnicke (eaw)" <eaw@...>
Subject: Re: [tsc] [vpp-dev] Replacing master/slave nomenclature
This is a pretty good summary of various suggestions for replacement terms:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:36 AM Jerome Tollet via
Please note that per this proposition,
https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/7/4/229, slave must be avoided but master can be kept.
Maybe master/member or master/secondary could be options too.
Le 14/07/2020 18:32, « vpp-dev@... au nom de steven luong via
lists.fd.io » <vpp-dev@... au nom de sluong=cisco.com@...> a écrit :
I am in the process of pushing a patch to replace master/slave with aggregator/member for the bonding.
On 7/13/20, 4:44 AM, "vpp-dev@... on behalf of Dave Barach via
lists.fd.io" <vpp-dev@... on behalf of dbarach=cisco.com@...> wrote:
+1, especially since our next release will be supported for a year, and API name changes are involved...
From: Kinsella, Ray <mdr@...>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 6:01 AM
To: Dave Barach (dbarach) <dbarach@...>; Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...>;
tsc@...; Ed Warnicke (eaw) <eaw@...>
Subject: Re: [vpp-dev] Replacing master/slave nomenclature
I agree, I don't think we should ignore this.
Ed - I suggest we table a discussion at the next FD.io TSC?
On 09/07/2020 17:05, Dave Barach via
> Looping in the technical steering committee...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vpp-dev@... <vpp-dev@...> On Behalf Of Stephen Hemminger
> Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 7:02 PM
> To: vpp-dev@...
> Subject: [vpp-dev] Replacing master/slave nomenclature
> Is the VPP project addressing the use of master/slave nomenclature in the code base, documentation and CLI? We are doing this for DPDK and it would be good if the replacement wording used in DPDK matched the wording used in FD.io projects.
> Particularly problematic is the use of master/slave in bonding.
> This seems to be a leftover from Linux, since none of the commercial products use that terminology and it is not present in 802.1AX standard.
> The IEEE and IETF are doing an across the board look at these terms in standards.