On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 02:32:18PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> It seems there is a rough consensus for using DNSOP for this work? If
well, this is not solely up for the WG to decide, but the general topic
fits in our charter and since we're about to recharter anyway it is
an opportunity to incorporate another "work basket". More important than
agreement which WG (or BOF) is the right place, though, is to define
the scope and to acquire commitments to discuss, edit and review documents.
Some of the drafts on our plate lack the latter, even in WGLC, and honestly
I'm not sure how to read all the "yes" votes^Wvoices for this new topic.
> so, I would request a DNSOP slot in IETF 58 / Prague to discuss the
> project, the requirments, the candidate protocols...
Well, thanks Stephane, for starting the discussion and involving the WG.
{Please contact Rob and me offline for scheduling logistics.}
Going through the contributions I see a rapidly growing wishlist, so we
would need to add negative requirements to the list of deliverables.
Finally, before discussing actual requirements, the WG needs to frame
the work and high level goals: are we looking for a general name server
management protocol, a means to share zone oriented configuration
information between servers or both or even more? I'd suggest to identify and
describe in detail the current operational problems or scenarios that require
an interoperable solution (section 3 in Phil's and Stephane's draft is a good
start IMHO).
Whether or not designing the solution is to happen here or elsewhere and how
that solution actually looks like can be decided later.
-Peter
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
