Re: [nscp] Updating zone *content* in-scope or not?

[Jeffrey Hutzelman <[e-mail]>]

--On Friday, September 17, 2010 03:15:25 PM -0700 Paul Hoffman 
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> At 6:06 PM -0400 9/17/10, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
>> --On Friday, September 17, 2010 01:15:13 AM +0200 OndÞej Sur˜
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>>>> > That works for me, although it should probably be written into the
>>>>>> charter.
>>>>>
>>>>> It should, definitely.
>>>>
>>>> If others agree that we want to possibly do this, but only after we
>>>> have done the "new" work first, I'll write up proposed words. What do
>>>> folks think?
>>>
>>> I agree that we should focus on new work first as proposed in previous
>>> mails. My understanding of this group is that we basically want start
>>> with protocol to add/remove/modify zone configuration remotely.
>>
>> I don't see managing zone content as necessarily wanting to be a
>> separate protocol from adding zones and setting policy for them.  Let's
>> not paint ourselves into a corner.
>
> I don't see us saying "we'll do that after we have settled on a protocol
> and specified other management actions first" as "paint ourselves into a
> corner". It's delaying stuff that can be a distraction.

I'm fine with not working on that right now, and even with expressing that 
in the charter.  But I don't want to be having a discussion six months from 
now about whether a proposed protocol is flexible enough to support zone 
content management and have someone make the argument "it doesn't have to 
be; that's out of scope".

As I see it, zone content management should be in scope for the 
to-be-developed protocol, and needs to be one of the things we consider as 
we design that protocol, even if actually defining how it works is not one 
of the first things we work on.

-- Jeff