Re: [dd] Back to the charter

George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> Fri, 22 March 2024 03:33 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <49CC837E-4D8E-45CF-A0B5-7A28A82B1939@icann.org> <CAKr6gn1o3UnC9QV0w7c_xikLd3gUwFHuAUQ1rhEv9-7QduOOhA@mail.gmail.com> <ybledc38byw.fsf@wx.hardakers.net>
In-Reply-To: <ybledc38byw.fsf@wx.hardakers.net>
From: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 13:32:52 +1000
Message-ID: <CAKr6gn1cV5YsTpf3dYkCL6ypqUEjcBSYtu=_1yog8R0WVaEOBA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>, dd@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dd/i5h7T6BcbL-qVymkU5mP1H3Vk9c>
Subject: Re: [dd] Back to the charter
Precedence: list

> A significant issue in today's deployed DNS that derives from these issues is data often being out of synchronization between parents and children. Said another way, children often have more up-to-date information about the nameservers and DNSSEC keying information than their parents due to slowness, or complete lack, of automated child-to-parent updates.

Children often have more up-to-date information about the nameservers
and DNSSEC keying information than their parents due to slowness, or
complete lack, of automated child-to-parent updates. Data is often out
of synchronization between parents and children which causes
significant problems.

> The working group will specify extensions to the DNS, EPP, and other protocols that relate to delegation. The working group will coordinate with other working groups as appropriate.

The working group will specify extensions to the DNS, EPP, and other
protocols including new resource records and equivalent structures
that relate to delegation. The working group will coordinate with
other working groups as appropriate.

On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 8:19 AM Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> wrote:
>
> George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> writes:
>
> > Strenuously avoids saying resource record/RR. Is this deliberate?
>
> I think RRs are likely the only easy way forward, but since we haven't collected requirements and design solutions yes I had a goal of leaving it open.  More specifically, I didn't see a reason to definitely restrict the text to be more specific.
>
> > Not sure I like "said another way" -felt like a hedge over wording disagreements.
>
> [no hats] I actually was not a huge fan of that wording either, so send text!
> --
> Wes Hardaker
> USC/ISI

[dd] Back to the charter Paul Hoffman
Re: [dd] Back to the charter George Michaelson
[dd] likely charter issues Geoff Huston
[dd] Charter issue: resource records Paul Hoffman
[dd] Charter issue: synchronization between paren… Paul Hoffman
[dd] Charter issue: authority models Paul Hoffman
[dd] Charter issue: Introduction of new signaling Paul Hoffman
Re: [dd] Back to the charter Wes Hardaker
Re: [dd] Back to the charter George Michaelson
Re: [dd] Charter issue: Introduction of new signa… Geoff Huston
Re: [dd] Back to the charter Havard Eidnes
Re: [dd] Charter issue: synchronization between p… Wes Hardaker
Re: [dd] Back to the charter Wes Hardaker