Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Sat, 08 August 2020 04:33 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 E1A413A0CBB for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 21:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 qC929ilT6IGG for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 21:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (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 9EDCC3A0C8E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 21:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BNq9L13CqzCm for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 06:33:26 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1596861206; bh=Xc3iTxk5O6xCTilXW0Xm86Us1bx4I/m8uDdrYtsHAhU=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=gfFDeWPO12rVxTQwz185AaoWk82CMG5Yigf6f0pQt7LaOgCoNTU//5LDOxECEf8pY 1qrpFRF6fwKC9w3w1SqMbmHUmX3tThoHLP7dbL0MIulfym92QUDbX2iwVf7F435hAY Y/Mqr/4eIvNmTxek15yg53bvk+pagFoqapGUXXE0=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jqx_wJ7Fj-lE for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 06:33:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 06:33:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7FA606020ECB; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 10:59:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7754382C94 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 10:59:18 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 10:59:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200807041818.GA38652@isc.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.23.451.2008071056270.626791@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <86c18e80-88ab-5503-f63c-f788766a2675@ghnou.su> <5303244.dBo8Fx6Cfl@linux-9daj> <c535e2eba885a82fb4fd6e967884498473b6c099.camel@nixmagic.com> <1725851.NVhN7QJb2C@linux-9daj> <20200807041818.GA38652@isc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/pjQ95Fpcvr8FGDwCpRUE-p9Pf_w>
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: Sat, 08 Aug 2020 04:33:29 -0000

On Fri, 7 Aug 2020, Evan Hunt wrote:

> 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.

I agree.

> that's not acceptable, then maybe "transfer provider" and "transfer
> recipient"?

That would require a new learning curve and in addition would be only
describing 1 aspect of a primary server. It might work when you are
talking about XFR, but would be very confusing otherwise.

Paul