Update to OSPF Terminology

Introduction This document updates some OSPF terminology to be in line with inclusive language used in the industry. The IETF has designated National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) "Guidance for NIST Staff on Using Inclusive Language in Documentary Standards" for its inclusive language guidelines. It is intended that all future OSPF documents use this revised terminology even when they reference the RFCs updated by this document. This document updates , , , , , , and .

Update to RFC2328 The base OSPFv2 specification defines the synchronization of databases as two routers froming a "master/slave relationship". All instances of these terms are replaced by leader/follower, respectively. The Master (MS) bit in the database description packet is renamed the Leader (L) bit. The operation of OSPFv2 is not modified. The Leader/Follower terminology and Leader (L) Bit definition changes impact the following sections: 7.2 "The Synchronization of Databases", 10 "The Neighbor Data Structures", 10.1 "Neighbor states", 10.2 "Events causing neighbor state changes", 10.6 "Receiving Database Description Packets", 10.8 "Sending Database Description Packets", 10.10 "An Example", and A.3.3 "The Database Description packet".

Update to RFC5340 The base OSPFv3 specification defines the database description process between two routers as one being "designated to be the master and the other is the slave". All instances of these terms are replaced by leader/follower, respectively. The Master/Slave (MS) bit in the database description packet is renamed the Leader (L) bit. The operation of OSPFv3 is not modified. The Leader/Follower terminology and Leader (L) Bit definition changes impact section A.3.3 "The Database Description packet".

Update to RFC4222 This Best Current Practice (BCP) document describes "Prioritized Treatment of Specific OSPF Version 2 Packets and Congestion Avoidance" . There is an example OSFPv2 packet sequence in Appendix C, (2), that refers to the "slave" in a database exchange. This reference will be renamed to "follower".

Update to RFC4811 This Experimental document specifies "OSPF Out-of-Band Link State Database (LSDB) Resynchronization" . Section 2.4 includes a Database Description packet figure and a description of the attendant encoding changes for Out-of-Band Resynchronization. In the figure and the description, all instances of MS when referring the Database Description packet bit are renamed to "L". There is also a reference to "Master" in this section that is renamed to "Leader".

Update to RFC5243 This Informational document describes an "OSPF Database Exchange Summary List Optimization" . The Introduction, Section 1, references "Master or Slave". This will be replaced by "Leader or Follower". Section 3.0 includes an example of the optimized database exchange. In this example, all instances of "Master" will be renamed to "Leader" and all instances of "Slave" will be rename to "Follower".

Update to RFC5614 This Experimental document specifies the "Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Extension of OSPF Using Connected Dominating Set (CDS) Flooding" . "Changes to the Neighbor State Machine", Section 7.2 contains modifications to the neighbor state machine updated from . In this transition to "2-way" state, all instances of "Master" are renamed to "Leader" and all instances of "Slave" are renamed to "Follower". Addiitionally, instances of "MS" in reference to the Database Description packet bit are renamed to "L". Additionally, in "Receiving Database Description Packets, Section 7.5, the parenthentical "master or slave" is replaced by "leader or follower".

Update to RFC5838 This Standards Track document specifies the "Support of Address Families in OSPFv3" . "Database Description Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) Specification for Non-IPv6 AFs", Section 2.7 contains a Database Description packet change figure which include the "MS" bit. In this figure, the "MS" field will be renamed to "L" field. Additionally, in Section 2.4.,first paragraph, "Changes to the Hello Packet Processing", the text is updated to remove the non-inclusive terms pertaining to unreachability handling as follows:

When an OSPFv3 router does not support this specification and an interface is configured with the Instance ID corresponding to a IPv4 AF, packets could be routed toward this interface and dropped. This could happen due to misconfiguration or a router software downgrade. Packet reception and dropping on an interface not configured with the packet AF. For example, an IPv4 packet could be received on an interface not supporting IPv4 since a router that doesn't support this specification can still include the interface in an SPF-calculated path as long as it establishes adjacencies using the Instance ID corresponding to the IPv4 AF. Note that OSPPFv3 Router-LSAs and Network-LSAs are AF-agnostic.

Acknowledgements Thanks to Dhruv Dhody, Adrian Farrel, and Barry Leiba for review and comments.

IANA Considerations IANA is requested to rename bit 0x01 in the "Database Description (DD) Packet Flags" registry to "Leader (L-bit)" and to add a reference to this document.

Security Considerations This document updates the terminology used in OSPF RFCs without any modification to the specifications of the protocol. As such, the security characteristics of OSPF do not change.