On Jul 14, 2020, at 1:20 PM, St Leger, Jim <jim.st.leger@...> wrote:

I believe the DPDK community converged on:
master/slave lcore -> initial/worker lcore

VPP is ok here I think with "main" and "worker".

blacklist/whitelist -> blocklist/allowlist

That one feels a bit clunky to me. I wonder why they didn't go for something more natural like

nouns: blocked/allowed
verbs: block/allow

The terms blacklist/whitelist can be a nouns or verbs, and I suspect they are often not implemented as an actual list data structure, so trying to keep the "list" suffix seems an unnecessary carryover (and sounds clunky IMHO). :)

Thanks,
Chris.

Full community discussion: https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-June/thread.html#169337

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: vpp-dev@... <vpp-dev@...> On Behalf Of Jerome Tollet via lists.fd.io
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 10:10 AM
To: Chris Luke <chris_luke@...>; Steven Luong (sluong) <sluong@...>; Dave Barach (dbarach) <dbarach@...>; Kinsella, Ray <mdr@...>; Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...>; vpp-dev@...; tsc@...; Ed Warnicke (eaw) <eaw@...>
Subject: Re: [tsc] [vpp-dev] Replacing master/slave nomenclature

Hi Chris,
I suspect it would be good to align on the new bond nomenclature coming from other projects. DPDK and Linux are probably starting points we should consider IMO.
Jerome

Le 14/07/2020 18:45, « tsc@... au nom de Chris Luke » <tsc@... au nom de chris_luke@...> a écrit :

It is subjective and contextualized. But in this case, if making the effort to correct a wrong, why stop half way?

Chris.

-----Original Message-----
From: vpp-dev@... <vpp-dev@...> On Behalf Of Jerome Tollet via lists.fd.io
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 12:37
To: Steven Luong (sluong) <sluong@...>; Dave Barach (dbarach) <dbarach@...>; Kinsella, Ray <mdr@...>; Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...>; vpp-dev@...; tsc@...; Ed Warnicke (eaw) <eaw@...>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [vpp-dev] Replacing master/slave nomenclature

Hi Steven,
Please note that per this proposition, https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/7/4/229__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!QdLdxm4rtZW-mFe5jt_qzEpx-_X2KWnqvjyEl-7Py41jsEV7FrnEw0lTNcF8LdfUzQ$ , slave must be avoided but master can be kept.
Maybe master/member or master/secondary could be options too.
Jerome

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.

Steven

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...

-----Original Message-----
From: Kinsella, Ray <mdr@...>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 6:01 AM
To: Dave Barach (dbarach) <dbarach@...>; Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...>; vpp-dev@...; tsc@...; Ed Warnicke (eaw) <eaw@...>
Subject: Re: [vpp-dev] Replacing master/slave nomenclature

Hi Stephen,

I agree, I don't think we should ignore this.
Ed - I suggest we table a discussion at the next FD.io TSC?

Ray K

On 09/07/2020 17:05, Dave Barach via lists.fd.io wrote:

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.