Hi Stephane, For DNS in general, I saw some terminologies in different RFCs. In other words, they are distributed in different RFCs. But probably it is a good idea to gather all in one RFC like what one of WGs did (If my memory helps me, I guess it was SACM)
Best, Hosnieh -----Original Message----- From: DNSOP [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stephane Bortzmeyer Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 5:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [DNSOP] DNS terminology (Was: draft-bortzmeyer-dnsop-dns-privacy (was: DNS privacy : now at least two drafts) On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 01:09:48PM -0700, John Heidemann <[email protected]> wrote a message of 112 lines which said: > what do we call the parts of the DNS resolver hierarchy? > > draft-bortzmeyer-dnsop-dns-privacy-02 defines and uses the terms ... > I recommend against use of resolver without an adjective for (2). > > Prior RFCs do not have consensus about what to use (both recursive > resolver and recursive name server appear). Personally I'd go with > "recursive resolver". Does the list have other recommendations? ... > I looked over many (but certainly not all) existing RFCs, and there is > some variation in terminology: There was no answer to this message. It is clear there is no standard DNS terminology, which is often a problem when talking about the future of the DNS. Any idea about how to change that? Do we need a "DNS terminology" RFC? _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
