IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Add] Designated Resolver Terminology

Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> Sat, 27 March 2021 12:49 UTC

Return-Path: <woody@pch.net>
X-Original-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 482923A294E for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Mar 2021 05:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RrRss_UEkNoD for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Mar 2021 05:49:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.pch.net (keriomail.pch.net [206.220.231.84]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B65D3A294C for <add@ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Mar 2021 05:49:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Footer: cGNoLm5ldA==
Received: from [10.19.48.7] ([69.166.14.2]) by mail.pch.net (Kerio Connect 9.2.7 patch 3) with ESMTPS (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256 bits)) for add@ietf.org; Sat, 27 Mar 2021 05:49:20 -0700
From: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0D4CF2BC-36D2-4421-AFD8-4AB05CCA4C44"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2021 13:49:17 +0100
References: <SN6PR07MB54560A1E0490F01353D15B94C0969@SN6PR07MB5456.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <2C5D1986-C1E4-42AF-AA8D-7703335F6183@apple.com> <SN6PR07MB545679D87E72047C52C84355C0949@SN6PR07MB5456.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <SN6PR07MB5456741F967AC14D0F3965CEC0639@SN6PR07MB5456.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <D5860B50-FC40-48A0-ABC4-B68AB6BC87CE@cisco.com>
To: "add@ietf.org" <add@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <D5860B50-FC40-48A0-ABC4-B68AB6BC87CE@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <6944BB00-ADF8-471E-A7CF-1BCDC3496F7C@pch.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/4hJla3zCYknentbO47NIaqohu_8>
Subject: Re: [Add] Designated Resolver Terminology
X-BeenThere: add@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications Doing DNS <add.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/add>, <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/add/>
List-Post: <mailto:add@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/add>, <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2021 12:49:27 -0000


> On Mar 27, 2021, at 1:25 PM, Eliot Lear <lear=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>> “Designated Authoritative Resolver” – for designated authoritative resolvers
> 
> In what sense is a resolver authoritative?
> 
>> “Designated Caching Resolver” – for caching resolvers
> 
> Which resolvers do not cache?

Yeah, while I’m fully supportive of the goal of working out harmonized terminology and using it ubiquitously and uniformly, Eliot has an excellent point that the way to get there is not to recombine terms which have specific meanings in novel and unintuitive ways.

Sometimes a neologism is what’s needed, since it can be defined, and nobody assumes that they know what it means, because they know what the words mean, or how it’s used in other contexts.

                                -Bill

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email