On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 07:40:25PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote: > -1. there are zones lacking primaries, and a secondary which can also > talk to other secondaries gives a second role to those other secondaries. > we must not simply revert to the STD 13 terminology. the role of an > authority server depends on what zone we're talking about and what other > server they're talking to. that's why i've recommended we stop talking > about "primary servers" or "secondary servers", and instead talk about > "transfer initiators" and "transfer responders", where the transfer > pertains to a zone and the initiator or responder is a server's role with > respect to that zone and that transfer.
I am visualizing a newly-hired and inexperienced administrator being shown the ropes, and told: - "this server is the master and that one is the slave", - "this server is the primary and that one is the secondary", or - "this server is the responder and that one is the initiator" ....and I think either of the first two versions would be clearer and more informative to them than the third. Within the specific context of discussing a zone transfer operation, "initiator" and "responder" are clear enough, but in the broader context of servers, service providers, and zone configurations, I don't see it as an improvement. (Come to think of it, even in that specific context, there's potential confusion in the fact that a primary server could meaningfully be said to "initiate" a transfer operation when it sends a NOTIFY.) On the other hand, you can say "server A acts as primary for server B", and it's fairly easy to understand even if technically neither one of them is *the* primary. -- Evan Hunt -- [email protected] Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
