Re: [dhcwg] RFC3315bis - Naming

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Mon, 03 March 2014 16:15 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C4151A0185 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 08:15:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.447
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham
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 DyVRI9iu6SH9 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 08:15:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 243641A0134 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 08:15:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FB611B82A3 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 08:15:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68288190043; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 08:15:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nat64.meeting.ietf.org (192.168.1.10) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 08:15:03 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFGoqUPCCBGu2e5Nw5vDS_3c_a30p=p2qc8xcM-+yWuEFtmGwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 15:32:21 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <AB0F3C49-EAF7-41B7-879B-0D2DA88ED0AC@nominum.com>
References: <AF7019CB-8EEB-4E43-A5B0-4863D763B0E2@employees.org> <53148AAB.8000601@gmail.com> <CAFGoqUPCCBGu2e5Nw5vDS_3c_a30p=p2qc8xcM-+yWuEFtmGwA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marcin Siodelski <msiodelski@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/O7Fj_OeAc7VoRk94Xe7eTWJiELw
Cc: DHC WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "Ralph Droms \(rdroms\)" <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] RFC3315bis - Naming
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 16:15:07 -0000

On Mar 3, 2014, at 2:07 PM, Marcin Siodelski <msiodelski@gmail.com>; wrote:
> If we just stick to this terminology, there is nothing in it that
> precludes it's use for PDs, as the node is a general term. So, I agree
> that we should use client, server and relay for prefix delegation,
> which would make editorial work way easier.

It's also easier to say, and easier to remember which is which—I always have to think when I try to use the requesting router/delegating router terminology.   Client and server is easy.