Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis and "recursive resolver"

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Tue, 14 February 2017 19:29 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.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 66FA612971B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:29:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 unqQbwuh9Njl for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:29:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x236.google.com (mail-qk0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::236]) (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 EF4D0129559 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:29:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x236.google.com with SMTP id p22so40720453qka.0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:29:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=B0kiOXdvdoIN7MOtVVGi2n1ncleRWsln7GwTVS0cxtY=; b=CDa/mUbpkZakyS65uJWM2gACvkssKmF851ZA6kcVFJ43giJzc1vZ5nD54UBsUj7cCi SCiWC63ZEbekB0uPLdjVj4TUM4jD03T0E/UojZTdWoGN21Bs5LCXyjPau82mssZ7v+Li tpuZAHhyjx9rzGqEcC2tr1c0SqLZ1fphGW48cCWMPgpwGVPA+K8lTrG6i7pxv4RAV0NH u5uvEDCZjCljVUhGuVZqOf9r8ltt1tjUMdWG8TU3abW8oQrfwe8/2dd5/UodzIO0+/yn vbRlMy16ieCSIrpTiw4qNl7WvKE5MdGVbqCMM5qHFMhd8qN3fHEqq8xLEnBbC+9xnd0m Dh8Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=B0kiOXdvdoIN7MOtVVGi2n1ncleRWsln7GwTVS0cxtY=; b=GmXeJ7x2V7f+lQj+Hl7+Ld4k+Trmq+OvRPT0x1aBWm2xKx/mSShDiHVtf0r+8yuqZH eElIOe0XM4kjf5zI50JV11nA7gGu6tVp+puxRw5wuqMud5sNmxB1wxYo7bdxRor1/EKy 6B/xR8Z3oL1rgnkZvlWEEcU5tKHPINrajneSfd6o4/9V/KyY0YEOtHTeXPzBoSDbJipp RpoLyOdM0wL/lRns7SUkB/OvvqQQ0/+UMRpCTD2D0cQSJHbKDdn6e9bKpXFOpqOaz+bx 4E8uxhhVMHNFgZLWR/h9i7Pk1tJEUaN9GiH0jvMLQGZfevrKZPH0MZdT51bHlmTfkX1O CNaQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mAHa1/WReB79InA0b/xB/49JV4sPbGi3S2sOD2It2QCI5jYye7cLskhpV00oyFLC+bNWUVi1yQtG39bQ==
X-Received: by 10.55.124.7 with SMTP id x7mr29231834qkc.149.1487100583792; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:29:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com
Received: by 10.237.60.29 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:29:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <02D05E11-F351-405F-8E25-8DC529425FF2@fugue.com>
References: <02D05E11-F351-405F-8E25-8DC529425FF2@fugue.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:29:43 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: jnjKyKQ905d0-PzA5KUGvOi8-CA
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqeLX0ftw7o4d9C2BAXrY01LcFx0jkjj7y5T4BcVj5uXvg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Q3XIxTiDBId-e-TVBgjOq3VOlRw>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis and "recursive resolver"
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 19:29:46 -0000

At Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:51:33 -0500,
Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:

> I'm updating a document for another working group, and Ralph Droms
> in his last call comments on that document asked me to use
> "recursive resolver" instead of "caching name server", referencing
> draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis.   That document doesn't actually
> define "recursive resolver," but instead "full service resolver,"
> which means almost, but not quite, the same thing.   The document
> does use the term "recursive resolver" fairly liberally despite
> there not being a definition for it.   Given that "recursive
> resolver" is in such common use, including in this document, I think
> the document should include a definition for "recursive resolver".

I agree.  My understanding is that the original terminology draft
restricted itself to terms already defined in existing RFCs an that's
probably why "recursive resolver" wasn't given a definition.  I
thought we are now more flexible in bis, so it makes sense to me to
give a "formal definition" to widely used terms like "recursive
resolver".

--
JINMEI, Tatuya