At Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:51:33 -0500, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote:
> I'm updating a document for another working group, and Ralph Droms > in his last call comments on that document asked me to use > "recursive resolver" instead of "caching name server", referencing > draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis. That document doesn't actually > define "recursive resolver," but instead "full service resolver," > which means almost, but not quite, the same thing. The document > does use the term "recursive resolver" fairly liberally despite > there not being a definition for it. Given that "recursive > resolver" is in such common use, including in this document, I think > the document should include a definition for "recursive resolver". I agree. My understanding is that the original terminology draft restricted itself to terms already defined in existing RFCs an that's probably why "recursive resolver" wasn't given a definition. I thought we are now more flexible in bis, so it makes sense to me to give a "formal definition" to widely used terms like "recursive resolver". -- JINMEI, Tatuya _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
