Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

[Michael De Roover <[e-mail]>]

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?

On Thu, 2020-07-23 at 08:50 +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
> i introduced the master/slave terminology in rfc 2136, because i
> needed names 
> for the roles in an AXFR/IXFR transaction, and the zone transfer
> hierarchy 
> could be more than one layer deep, such that a server might initiate
> some 
> AXFR/IXFR's to the "primary master" but then respond to AXFR/IXFR's
> from other 
> servers. in retrospect i should have chosen the terms, "transfer
> initiator" 
> and "transfer responder". however, the hydraulic brake and clutch
> systems in 
> my car had "master cylinders" and "slave cylinders", and so i did not
> think i 
> was either inventing a new use for the words "master" and "slave", or
> that my 
> use of them for this purpose would be controversial. i was naive, and
> i 
> suggest that we revisit the terminology we use in all our distributed
> systems, 
> starting with DNS zone transfer roles.
-- 
Met vriendelijke groet / Best regards,
Michael De Roover