> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-wouters-dnsop-secure-update-use-cases-00
>> On Jul 16, 2012, at 12:40 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>>> On 13 jul 2012, at 13:57, Peter Koch wrote:
>>>> while this discussion is refreshing, the reason Paul (was) volunteered
>>>> to write this document was less the (re-)definition of the lame delegation
>>>> terminology but more to address (potential) requirements for an in-band
>>>> child parent key exchange. Let's leave the bikeshed black for the moment
>>>> and focus on the design of the bikes instead.
>>> Because I find the registrar/registry description be non-complete, and in some cases wrong, let me suggest that portion of the draft is just removed, and instead that the draft actually talk about what it is supposed to talk about.
> The goal was to describe use cases, not requirements. We can change that
> if we want, but then we will have the use-cases discussion anyway on the
> list. If the WG wants that, it's fine with me.
The use cases in section 3 are fine because they are use cases for standardized things. Patrik's objections were (all?) about the "use cases" in section 4, which in fact are business models, some of which exist today and others which do not.
I disagree that this WG needs to have a discussion of the latter as long your use case document describes the three parties: "zone operator", "registry", and "organization that might have a business relationship between those two". Any discussion about the business model of the third party and the first or second doesn't feel like a use case to me at all.