[Nut-upsuser] On retiring some terminology

Roger Price roger at rogerprice.org
Sat Mar 13 11:08:46 GMT 2021

On Sat, 13 Mar 2021, Jim Klimov via Nut-upsuser wrote:

> Hello fellow NUTs :)
>   Some time ago an issue https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/issues/840 was raised, and with current work underway to publish a standard on NUT
> protocol it became more urgent - to retire the master/slave terminology from NUT configuration and documentation.
>   I looked around for suitable synonyms, and for our primary use-case with upsmon roles - where it either manages an UPS by direct link and tells others
> to shut down ASAP, or is one of such shutdown agents being told what to do, words "manager" and "subordinate" seem neutral enough and reflective of the
> activities and relationship of these actors.
>   Would native speakers or others better versed in the current dictionary of acceptable words please confirm if this choice is okay, or suggest better
> alternatives?
>   The plan is to re-word the README and other documentation, as well as option names in code (leaving old terms as aliases for the sake of existing
> deployments, but otherwise not exposed).

The proposed NUT RFC, 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rprice-ups-management-protocol/ which is 
currently in the Internet-Draft (I-D) stage, uses the terms "primary" and 
"secondary".  Following IETF practice, if Jim announces « we have a consensus on 
issue https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/issues/840 "master/slave" 
replacement », then your humble and obedient editor will record it in the I-D.

Note that the I-D has also changed "NETVER" to "PROTVER" on the grounds that 
it's the version of the protocol and not the version of the network that is 

There is no absolute imperative to align code with the I-D, which mentions the 
current usage.


More information about the Nut-upsuser mailing list