On Fri, 7 Aug 2020, Evan Hunt wrote:
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.
I agree.
that's not acceptable, then maybe "transfer provider" and "transfer recipient"?
That would require a new learning curve and in addition would be only describing 1 aspect of a primary server. It might work when you are talking about XFR, but would be very confusing otherwise. Paul _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
