Re: [vpp-dev] Replacing master/slave nomenclature

Steven Luong (sluong) <sluong@...>

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" <vpp-dev@... on behalf of> 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 TSC?

Ray K

On 09/07/2020 17:05, Dave Barach via 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 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.

Join { to automatically receive all group messages.