Re: [dd] Charter issue: synchronization between parents and children

[Wes Hardaker <[e-mail]>]

Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]> writes:

FYI, I'm back from a week of vacation and catching up.  I'll respond to
some of the threads based on my personal opinion.

> > 1. Background and problems includes: ." 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."
> > 
> > But there is no mention of any objective or deliverable that
> > specifically addresses this "significant issue".
> > 
> > Is this topic in or out of scope? If its in scope then should there
> > be a deliverable that references this? If its out of scope then why
> > mention synchronisation at all, let alone as a "significant issue"?
> 
> My no-hats interpretation is that it is definitely in-scope and would
> need to be dealt with in the requirements document. It is, after all,
> listed as a significant issue in the charter.

I agree with Paul here.  There is always a struggle with working groups
crafting new protocols about how much to put in the charter vs what to
list in requirements.  George is right that when possible the charter
should be explicit as possible.  But in this case, I don't think
requirements gathering is completed yet as not all corners of the
industry have really signed off on a list of needs yet.  Hence the first
goal of the WG, IMHO, should be gathering requirements -- this does
leave holes in the charter, however, but the requirements for
requirements [sic] is the best mitigation for this.  Any resulting
proposed solution will need to ensure it conforms to the documented and
WG accepted requirements.
-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI