> At 17:05 -0400 7/14/12, Joe Abley wrote:
>> Any new work which needed to assert that both sets were the same would
>> meet with little objection though, I think.
> I disagree.
> I would object to any strengthening of what is said in STD 13.
> Yes, the two sets are designed to be the same. But if they had to
> always be the same, it would bi impossible to add or delete NS
In this context, "the same" refers to the steady state: i.e. a mechanism which standardised the promotion of an updated, signed apex NS set to form a replacement delegation set in the parent would be one that enforced that steady-state similarity. This is in contrast to a conscious operational decision to keep the delegation and apex NS sets different in the steady state (which at least a couple of us have observed).
My point was that prevalent deployment of such mechanisms which prevented (or made difficult to maintain) such conscious dissonance would likely meet with little objection.