Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Wed, 05 August 2020 01:04 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.org>
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 9AFB63A11F5 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 18:04:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 LF487ISmQdPW for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 18:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cd::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0D9B3A11A3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 18:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linux-9daj.localnet (dhcp-183.access.rits.tisf.net [24.104.150.183]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (1024 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A6D79C3F19; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 01:04:23 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
To: dnsop@ietf.org, Michael De Roover <ietf@nixmagic.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 01:04:22 +0000
Message-ID: <1725851.NVhN7QJb2C@linux-9daj>
Organization: none
In-Reply-To: <c535e2eba885a82fb4fd6e967884498473b6c099.camel@nixmagic.com>
References: <86c18e80-88ab-5503-f63c-f788766a2675@ghnou.su> <5303244.dBo8Fx6Cfl@linux-9daj> <c535e2eba885a82fb4fd6e967884498473b6c099.camel@nixmagic.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/k_RoWl77n4xnv8tJqSPwU4-Oxc4>
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: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 01:04:29 -0000

On Tuesday, 4 August 2020 23:11:34 UTC Michael De Roover wrote:
> 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?

i borrowed the initiator/responder terminology from iSCSI, and it seems 
intuitive to me. this isn't a client/server situation, because a given host 
might be both a client and a server, in a multi-level transfer graph. we need 
terminology that describes the transaction, and not the host or hosts 
participating in that transaction. we stopped using requester/responder when 
the op codes stopped being limited to just QUERY and IQUERY and STATUS. (in 
other words, UPDATE is technically a request, but not notionally so.)

what's your proposal?

-- 
Paul