IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Evan Hunt <each@isc.org> Fri, 07 August 2020 04:18 UTC

Return-Path: <each@isc.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 4722B3A0E39 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 21:18:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 B674-QX7ZLT3 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 21:18:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) (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 E7ACF3A0E29 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 21:18:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [149.20.1.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2679A3AB000; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 04:18:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix, from userid 10292) id 1ACA44519A; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 04:18:18 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 04:18:18 +0000
From: Evan Hunt <each@isc.org>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org, Michael De Roover <ietf@nixmagic.com>
Message-ID: <20200807041818.GA38652@isc.org>
References: <86c18e80-88ab-5503-f63c-f788766a2675@ghnou.su> <5303244.dBo8Fx6Cfl@linux-9daj> <c535e2eba885a82fb4fd6e967884498473b6c099.camel@nixmagic.com> <1725851.NVhN7QJb2C@linux-9daj>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1725851.NVhN7QJb2C@linux-9daj>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/l-XZmWVdDl-Z6kIeCi0LNImsk1I>
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: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 04:18:21 -0000

On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 01:04:22AM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
> On Tuesday, 4 August 2020 23:11:34 UTC Michael De Roover wrote:
>
> 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?

As I said earlier, I think "primary" and "seconary" are well-enough
understood concepts now that we can describe roles in a particular
transaction with phrases like "acting as a primary" or "acting as a
secondary" and get the point across without much difficulty. But if
that's not acceptable, then maybe "transfer provider" and "transfer
recipient"?

-- 
Evan Hunt -- each@isc.org
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email