Movement on the Requirements Document

[Edward Lewis <lewis@tislabs.com>]

At the close of the last call period, there were two remaining unresolved
issues, unresolved in the sense that there was at least one person unhappy
with some text in the requirements document.  Note that consensus does not
mean unanimity, but we do like to see everyone be happy.

The two open issues are:

Whether or not the protocol is to reveal "abstract object relationships."
In our opinion, this (albeit desireable) feature would present a
significant amount of feature creep into our current efforts.   We propose
to let the draft stand as is on this topic.

Whether or not the protocol assumes name servers are linked to their
domains.  It seems wise to accept the restrictive model as proposed,
because of the downside of "orphaned records" when domains are pulled.

The WG chairs, following an update from the author[1], will send the draft
(without another last call to this working group) to the IESG.

We don't see there being a huge amount of controversy with this
requirements document.  Those that feel strongly enough can issue comments
during the IESG last call, but for now the WG chairs feel it is time to
move this document on and get to the matter of defining the protocol.

[1] Which has happened while the chairs were sync'ing on the words here...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                NAI Labs
Phone: +1 443-259-2352                      Email: lewis@tislabs.com

You fly too often when ... the airport taxi is on speed-dial.

Opinions expressed are property of my evil twin, not my employer.