How about source/sink? Mike On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 21:04 Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote:
> 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 >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
