IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-dupont-dnsop-rfc2845bis

Bob Harold <rharolde@umich.edu> Wed, 11 April 2018 13:06 UTC

Return-Path: <rharolde@umich.edu>
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 29E0D126D73 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 06:06:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=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=umich.edu
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 UtGuVP5-b-RK for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 06:05:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x234.google.com (mail-lf0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::234]) (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 DBBE6126D0C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 06:05:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x234.google.com with SMTP id m200-v6so2531811lfm.4 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 06:05:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umich.edu; s=google-2016-06-03; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MQ8RT3WihFyt06plBzgRCZNcVH3ASLye+CgbTBUyMfs=; b=hiGV2ss4liaycbXG8qDgN1L99CIq8YDv8tK2brSFCC6+7CIO2uIIy49bRi2qyxfjCG D8nZuf2Z4DinxDEiHc9pz2DcCcN75jl2pBUgan4RJvs0YqLasCAcLq0pEYn+9du8z+7s OCNUO24sP1bIVvK60V1c4jbfYsVMhiR7t+N7haNeOCOjk6UR7xGc54LT0w5yMTT9zG5Y rlTi4AOLUMnP2mtmpr/hAHuahcED7xkiBQ6W9sCzDK3tPEtmc0rQYeD1gjdZhBPgEsLv 549h/oEJl+nT/N/xyjczA2SHe3vsBUca13IvsnKtU9/fGbZG4k9Cofe2errPbE6SSxZw Vpmg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MQ8RT3WihFyt06plBzgRCZNcVH3ASLye+CgbTBUyMfs=; b=X0uksWs0C0KW+RvcuAyqbZZVubpwwGtcIO7XQRJxWVteKNQJZNUsqoNfzGlUVTP8HR ocB+llameyZilOqHSKUZyqaXSHDMYfaTrpIoB8mGnrHDiEHy027cve/WjXWbuxmt0KD6 Hd3CwGutzwnH4rUQLB4WdvlYI7MBkL3gVDmOuqGhxHkNK/sH09h/89zW3NUB7m7MDZUG WS02sBfFeuC+3jOPXdMRsz4JownPAC08jOZlerwJFIssdMzkjEyj+cENPi/GuGj9foq0 p6FGWOSLjG247q5A5XsObSvm12GrKzAZe6qprj8BkTEm/Su7HG62l+6JKmIVK/DCGAXA q4pw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tBYIMnXYeqcmAQdSDaEx6tjQOxZrYlixELW5ZmSaZ8VPP8Av2P0 KbEAu8dyGuziKzDfD8YGKktdkEcePfNuKMZNXO+BRyzD
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx49TUeBGtVq4OFta9YqBediRDEet2PETWJh6U0u65qpiOBirA7NgIm+YuUSwo8n/gdOBYKHqZrt/Z5z5gjDJtr4=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:c713:: with SMTP id x19-v6mr3002816lff.32.1523451957072; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 06:05:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.46.66.211 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 06:05:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJhMdTPRjmuaWSiBoF9AkuHeQNqShEC7qmyFFzfDt6kGr-rZ6g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADyWQ+FX+G52ENFM24joYV7EuegK4YCNrcayKKLJghbzz4z8xg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqcMYqZuw-z_sLAU3GrKf8s-4dRV_BJicWnDqyL3NDPsSg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+nkc8CNFW-cVYj8W8pifQMfV9iVV7caFg3D_rA-QVeSOg-zWA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJhMdTPRjmuaWSiBoF9AkuHeQNqShEC7qmyFFzfDt6kGr-rZ6g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bob Harold <rharolde@umich.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 09:05:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+nkc8CP6BRirdrGsWOZHB==ipSZtaQTpB+uXpnDku=GAssu3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bbe5d60569924c99"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/TXx-ocEs5bAiuMODd5S9UswbG9g>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-dupont-dnsop-rfc2845bis
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 11 Apr 2018 13:06:02 -0000

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:

> Hi Bob,
>
> On Apr 11, 2018, at 08:50, Bob Harold <rharolde@umich.edu> wrote:
>
> > In various places, like 4.3.  TSIG Record Format, "resolver and server"
> is used which seems a little vague to me, since I use TSIG between master
> and slave authoritative servers, neither of which is a resolver.  Would it
> make sense to use "sender and receiver" ?  Or 6.5.4. uses "client" and
> "server" and that would work, if used consistently everywhere.
>
> Since you can send and receive both responses and queries, I prefer
> "initiator" and "responder" to "sender" and "receiver". I think I
> first saw those terms used in one of Vixie's drafts, and I liked them.
>
> "Client" and "server" have semantic overtones (e.g. relating to end
> users and services) and I find them less precise unless the context is
> very clear.
>
>
> Joe
>

Agreed.   "initiator" and "responder" is better, I just could not think of
the right term.

-- 
Bob Harold

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email