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?
On Thu, 2020-07-23 at 08:50 +0000, Paul Vixie wrote: > i introduced the master/slave terminology in rfc 2136, because i > needed names > for the roles in an AXFR/IXFR transaction, and the zone transfer > hierarchy > could be more than one layer deep, such that a server might initiate > some > AXFR/IXFR's to the "primary master" but then respond to AXFR/IXFR's > from other > servers. in retrospect i should have chosen the terms, "transfer > initiator" > and "transfer responder". however, the hydraulic brake and clutch > systems in > my car had "master cylinders" and "slave cylinders", and so i did not > think i > was either inventing a new use for the words "master" and "slave", or > that my > use of them for this purpose would be controversial. i was naive, and > i > suggest that we revisit the terminology we use in all our distributed > systems, > starting with DNS zone transfer roles. -- Met vriendelijke groet / Best regards, Michael De Roover _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
