Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> Sat, 08 August 2020 11:22 UTC

Return-Path: <jared@puck.nether.net>
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 94BBC3A0B86 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 04:22:32 -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_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 1KloZTrC0asb for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 04:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from puck.nether.net (puck.nether.net [IPv6:2001:418:3f4::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 86CB43A0B84 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 04:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.155] (c-68-49-104-93.hsd1.mi.comcast.net [68.49.104.93]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by puck.nether.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4E1675400B2; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 07:22:30 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.23.451.2008071056270.626791@bofh.nohats.ca>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 07:22:29 -0400
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <FC7E3FC3-E700-4017-892C-DBD288BCD502@puck.nether.net>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.23.451.2008071056270.626791@bofh.nohats.ca>
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17G68)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/x_OGWa2rawDzEQG5ccWYfKZVcuE>
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 11:22:33 -0000


> On Aug 8, 2020, at 12:33 AM, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> wrote:
> 
> 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.

We are fundamentally talking about caching of the content. In the squid or CDN cases this would be parent/child, but the child is a versioned clone :-)

It may be worthwhile to look at the replicated data techniques amongst other protocols and services with an open mind if the WG is still thinking about the terminology. 

- Jared