On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 10:35:22AM -0500, Edward Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 104 lines which said:
> This effort could be quite large or quite constrained. I'm > indifferent in how large a scope is desired, but whatever scope is > desired, it has to be made really clear. Giving your wishlist, I believe you are more a supporter of a large scope? Because your list is long and it seems that some items (such as health reporting) may require a strong coupling with the nameserver. My personal inclination goes toward a constrained scope. A protocol more like ISC's metazones or PowerDNS' supermaster. I agree that "views" are may be outside of a really constrained scope, I'll suggest solution for them. But, in general, I would prefer to stick with zone management (provisioning, configuring, reloading), not general nameserver management. BTW, speaking of nameserver management, what's the opinion of the WG on RFC 3197? _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
