Paul Vixie: > > however, AXFR was never an acronym, and there is no original meaning > to be discovered here. in [RFC1035 3.2.3] there is one line of text: > > > AXFR 252 A request for a transfer of an entire zone > > > and it's the definition of the QTYPE, not the overall transaction that > the QTYPE is part of. > > i think the safest thing is to not invent an acronym, but rather, let > the QTYPE definition stand as written.
This is my feeling too. These backbending attempts to retrofit an appropriate expansion of the abbreviation seem a bit strange to me. Not all abbreviations need to be able spell out every letter in them. (Also, I'm not sure this is commonly accepted by grammarians, but I've been trained by English major friends to not call these things acronyms, which I'm told are the subset of "pronounceable abbreviations" like ASCII and NAT). Ed Lewis: > And there’s http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5936.txt. It has > "Authoritative Transfer (AXFR)” in the abstract. > > “Asynchronous" does not appear in that RFC. > Hmm, does this imply that IXFR is a transfer of data that it not authoritative? :-) Or does it need to be renamed to IAXFR. Or should A in AXFR be something else, like "Absolute", or "All" or "All-Data" which might more correctly differentiate it from "Incremental". Shumon Huque
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
