On Tuesday, 4 August 2020 23:11:34 UTC Michael De Roover wrote: > 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?
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? -- Paul _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
