Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Thu, 23 July 2020 19:59 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 157F03A0D22 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 12:59:22 -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_H4=-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 T66EKYFSSu9A for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 12:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-42.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-42.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.142]) (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 8C6C33A0D20 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 12:59:20 -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]:60664) by ppsw-42.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.138]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) id 1jyhN7-000XSa-8y (Exim 4.92.3) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Thu, 23 Jul 2020 20:59:17 +0100
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 20:59:17 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
cc: Robert Edmonds <edmonds@mycre.ws>, dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <1C6ACEA9-CCC5-41F5-AEAD-432B48370D12@hopcount.ca>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.2007232038070.24797@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <86c18e80-88ab-5503-f63c-f788766a2675@ghnou.su> <20200723172449.GA371024@mycre.ws> <1C6ACEA9-CCC5-41F5-AEAD-432B48370D12@hopcount.ca>
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/W2XgJBO-SCc5oE92HBOK7AHxN7A>
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 19:59:22 -0000

Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:
>
> in my opinion we should find new words and not redefine or
> overload the common meaning of primary and secondary.

Yes. I don't really like primary/secondary because it implies there are
only two categories when there aren't.

For zone transfers, each server can (and often does) have both upstreams
and downstreams, so the topology has multiple layers. Using "primary" and
"secondary" in this context often implies things that aren't true.

>From the outside point of view, an authoritative server can be used for
several functions (public auth server listed in NS records, zone transfer
server, update server, etc.) and whether it is primary or not is mostly
irrelevant.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Faeroes: Southerly or southeasterly 2 to 4, occasionally 5 in west, becoming
variable 3 or 4 later. Slight or moderate. Occasional rain. Moderate or good,
occasionally poor later.