Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

[Paul Vixie <[e-mail]>]

On Friday, 7 August 2020 04:18:18 UTC Evan Hunt wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 01:04:22AM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > ...
> > 
> > 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"?

when we started, bind was using the words "primary" and "secondary" in its 
config file, and was documenting the phrases "primary server" and "secondary 
server" in its operations guide. confusion was common, because in those days 
recursion wasn't optional and shared a namespace with authority data. so we 
also had terms like "recursive server" and "authority server" in wide use.

virtually any semantically meaningful term that's applied to the transaction 
rather than to the zone or the server, is fine by me. including going back to 
"primary" and "secondary", which feels a bit like going through a time machine 
to go back to when i was 25 and tell my younger self "just leave things as 
alone, trust me."

-- 
Paul