Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

"StJohns, Michael" <msj@nthpermutation.com> Wed, 05 August 2020 01:41 UTC

Return-Path: <msj@nthpermutation.com>
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 256943A11C1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 18:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 zrJIqz2gN5bf for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 18:41:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk1-xa2c.google.com (mail-vk1-xa2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90E0E3A11B5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 18:41:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk1-xa2c.google.com with SMTP id m12so1266046vko.5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Aug 2020 18:41:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nthpermutation-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ACe4qG29nnKI4kwAcuF9bSOMQvdgFsfOtEmC+OIpBLc=; b=TUz5SIjXci/Ee7XdDPyTulSJsP5pLDOHPVqFED8yBhcLRJkDHez0x9ZL5GLKylYqzj lWjN52h6qsjMdgunRVl/1ZnXdMB3rd6LTmuvap4iqOey5IKplqsLQYTDCE596xKAv1Ck loN7K4seGktIp7WBhpIfsvf+CyuWMwMfiZgMN5oEaFaTBQdE7EXlN1gF/PczsBuA/yRr ILbUcKrhHRcS8BnctahqlnxlIRXnta4EmaX1ARUwo/rMcQdk7h+UmcUEpA4g+Ll16mnh 8pHZEQ+CJDAPnWH7U2FT3S2vb3g4C4S/XAzbLUN46deQutWO9aYVcBiTIhIAp660qdnM 5NWQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ACe4qG29nnKI4kwAcuF9bSOMQvdgFsfOtEmC+OIpBLc=; b=rZvyAxbRHrBpj4VRbbXW3BGvxOUTGMat5a2p2Utz6NBSEDSC8AqaJGhZhjEYiAPEm9 datT6lvlX3AaYVe+pAB+zQBSsp5rAHjU1ZKgsw+/6O1mbfGrltVR/q/wInP46bGwlgKQ utELkop2eqcGubhh3PQolV3nZwlDP/ZOtvHy/x8Edc8pNSES2RrO8Qpk54kl0Xlg7c5f dOFDgU2RSBDX9YmriwivCk90eHHMjRvIKayD1ksLv+Pbcg1q3QDizu70bW4OgEqRpMtf tuVhbZ7q92CfyiD4Rq/GOEb3OgfZ9Xe5bLFxS0QsexCD6331Zj1vniAuvF8oPL/7ulNk wBjQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5315ACjH1CCd810bTDmTrhbhmAbvzOWpp5V5Yw3KJpNeJHed2yrK SWSp6V1uWSWhF0VMXM4Jye844/PllUw/cW8uN28vi1HLdMY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwuOz5zaKXkp1rOPPf7ytH1XcSg4+dZe5QJueBOEHP4rvxXUIaVD4Wm4KW5TZHvVYWtJfUK1BzqVXG4QP6ypB0=
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:eac1:: with SMTP id i184mr824744vkh.66.1596591673320; Tue, 04 Aug 2020 18:41:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <86c18e80-88ab-5503-f63c-f788766a2675@ghnou.su> <5303244.dBo8Fx6Cfl@linux-9daj> <c535e2eba885a82fb4fd6e967884498473b6c099.camel@nixmagic.com> <1725851.NVhN7QJb2C@linux-9daj>
In-Reply-To: <1725851.NVhN7QJb2C@linux-9daj>
From: "StJohns, Michael" <msj@nthpermutation.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 21:41:02 -0400
Message-ID: <CANeU+ZDEz5RMumhfGXmeD40pTni4VDaepana2G4y=nnDnSujFg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
Cc: Michael De Roover <ietf@nixmagic.com>, dnsop@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008a42c205ac177759"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/OY1vbq6oPYzrxkokc-thHFrXFlM>
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: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 01:41:16 -0000

How about source/sink?  Mike

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 21:04 Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 4 August 2020 23:11:34 UTC Michael De Roover wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Sorry for the late reply.
> > I feel concerned about using the term "responder" for a zone transfer
> > target. Instinctively it makes me think of a DNS server responding to a
> > regular query. In a non-DNS context it would make me think of a first
> > responder in e.g. health services. Wouldn't it be unintuitive to use
> > this term for a zone transfer?
>
> i borrowed the initiator/responder terminology from iSCSI, and it seems
> intuitive to me. this isn't a client/server situation, because a given
> host
> might be both a client and a server, in a multi-level transfer graph. we
> need
> terminology that describes the transaction, and not the host or hosts
> participating in that transaction. we stopped using requester/responder
> when
> the op codes stopped being limited to just QUERY and IQUERY and STATUS.
> (in
> other words, UPDATE is technically a request, but not notionally so.)
>
> what's your proposal?
>
> --
> Paul
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>