On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 01:04:22AM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote: > On Tuesday, 4 August 2020 23:11:34 UTC Michael De Roover wrote: > > 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?
As I said earlier, I think "primary" and "seconary" are well-enough understood concepts now that we can describe roles in a particular transaction with phrases like "acting as a primary" or "acting as a secondary" and get the point across without much difficulty. But if that's not acceptable, then maybe "transfer provider" and "transfer recipient"? -- Evan Hunt -- e...@isc.org Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
