Re: [DNSOP] Terminology question: split DNS

John Kristoff <jtk@depaul.edu> Mon, 19 March 2018 19:54 UTC

Return-Path: <jtk@depaul.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 A066D127444 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 12:54:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 eo7pVMZ9ws8a for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 12:54:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aharp.iorc.depaul.edu (aharp.iorc.depaul.edu [IPv6:2620:0:2250:2115:c0a7:18f5:bca1:ba92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E551273E2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 12:54:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p50.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aharp.iorc.depaul.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 176262002; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 19:54:33 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:54:32 -0500
From: John Kristoff <jtk@depaul.edu>
To: "Darcy Kevin (FCA)" <kevin.darcy@fcagroup.com>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20180319145432.16397890@p50.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <35c4151fc37e48fbbd7d4224e6bad5a5@XCASPRD01-DFT.dpu.depaul.edu>
References: <3D490CA8-0733-47AD-A088-113B1116B207@vpnc.org> <5AAFF968.10407@redbarn.org> <35c4151fc37e48fbbd7d4224e6bad5a5@XCASPRD01-DFT.dpu.depaul.edu>
Reply-To: jtk@aharp.iorc.depaul.edu
X-Trump: Sucks
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/WH4qCcGX1kFf9t1XU2ZzIDD-aXk>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Terminology question: split DNS
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: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 19:54:36 -0000

On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 19:26:42 +0000
"Darcy Kevin (FCA)" <kevin.darcy@fcagroup.com>; wrote:

> How about just "disjoint DNS" or "non-synchronized DNS"? Or, to
> hijack the Perl motto, TMTOWTRI (There's More Than One Way To Resolve
> It :-)

Coming up with new names though is less than ideal.  The Microsoft
community has used split-brain, which might be an option, but might
not get a lot of support from this community (including me). RFC 7719
seems to prefer the term "view" for better or worse.  I kind like that.
Paul's comment doesn't convince me it shouldn't be apportioned for this.

John