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

Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> Fri, 17 September 2010 22:06 UTC

Return-Path: <jhutz@cmu.edu>
X-Original-To: nscp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nscp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3F913A6924 for <nscp@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 15:06:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.41
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.41 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.111, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cztd7hfq6GR3 for <nscp@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 15:06:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp02.srv.cs.cmu.edu (SMTP02.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.217.197]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C85FD3A6922 for <nscp@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 15:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MINBAR.FAC.CS.CMU.EDU (MINBAR.FAC.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.216.42]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp02.srv.cs.cmu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id o8HM6c5M028834 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:06:39 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:06:38 -0400
From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Ond=C5=99ej_Sur=C3=BD?= <ondrej@sury.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Message-ID: <4C6A8B95E7FAF06E143D9425@minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <22489_1284679010_o8GNGnKr014689_AANLkTikkgZs3keRo0DcRCx9jSAbrFiHeLsyxE5ss7hQ7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4C9091C8.1030702@isc.org> <p062408d6c8b692e2c226@10.20.30.158> <A5289BAE-189D-4FF0-8AEC-2CCDC06D3B43@sinodun.com> <p062408dbc8b6aaf55b1a@10.20.30.158> <F41F5A3D292BA66474A70422@minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu> <20100916130131.GA29091@nic.fr> <p0624081fc8b7e8b23cc0@10.20.30.158> <22r5gtcwtj.fsf@ziptop.autonomica.net> <p06240837c8b839e8f192@10.20.30.158> <22k4mlbb6k.fsf@ziptop.autonomica.net> <p0624083ac8b8499641a3@10.20.30.158> <22489_1284679010_o8GNGnKr014689_AANLkTikkgZs3keRo0DcRCx9jSAbrFiHeLsyxE5ss7hQ7@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Linux/x86)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Scanned-By: mimedefang-cmuscs on 128.2.217.197
Cc: nscp@ietf.org, jhutz@cmu.edu
Subject: Re: [nscp] Updating zone *content* in-scope or not?
X-BeenThere: nscp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Nameserver control/configuration protocol discussion list <nscp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nscp>, <mailto:nscp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nscp>
List-Post: <mailto:nscp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nscp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nscp>, <mailto:nscp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 22:06:16 -0000

--On Friday, September 17, 2010 01:15:13 AM +0200 Ondřej Surý 
<ondrej@sury.org>; 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.