Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Thu, 23 July 2020 20:10 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C144B3A0D46 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 13:10:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.918
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_NONE=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 GgDRI2qkN5fg for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 13:10:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70A713A0D41 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 13:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:53494) by ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.136]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) id 1jyhYH-000pnV-0w (Exim 4.92.3) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Thu, 23 Jul 2020 21:10:49 +0100
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 21:10:49 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
cc: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>, dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>, Evan Hunt <each@isc.org>, Robert Edmonds <edmonds@mycre.ws>
In-Reply-To: <2141383.qLNa8zf0Xv@linux-9daj>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.2007232059540.24797@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <86c18e80-88ab-5503-f63c-f788766a2675@ghnou.su> <1C6ACEA9-CCC5-41F5-AEAD-432B48370D12@hopcount.ca> <20200723183407.GB34140@isc.org> <2141383.qLNa8zf0Xv@linux-9daj>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/7CIxjz8IU-N5B2hBytGGPCFkxFU>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 20:10:56 -0000

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> wrote:
>
> that's why i've recommended we stop talking about "primary servers" or
> "secondary servers", and instead talk about "transfer initiators" and
> "transfer responders"

Agreed, except that if you include notify as part of the zone transfer
machinery, the question of who is the initiator gets murky. (An upstream
starts a zone transfer process by notifying a downstream that it might
want to make a transfer request... who is taking the initiative here?)
So I prefer upstream and downstream, to match the flow of zone data.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Great Orme Head to the Mull of Galloway: West or northwest 3 or 4,
occasionally 5 near Mull of Galloway, becoming variable 3 or less later
backing south 4 or 5 later. Smooth or slight. Mainly fair. Mainly good.