When a consumer of catalog zone $NEWCATZ receives an update of $NEWCATZ which adds or changes a member zone, and that consumer had the member zone associated with $OLDCATZ, and there is a coo property of the member zone in $OLDCATZ pointing to $NEWCATZ, only then it will reconfigure the member zone with the for $NEWCATZ preconfigured settings.
Would it be possible to somehow rephrase it? It is hard to read as it is one gigantic sentence and at the same time it is not obvious from the text why the ordering must be exactly this.
Question from a new draft reader: Why the transfer should not happen if the zone is first added to the new catalog and only the the coo property is added to later? (Or the transfer of the first zone is delayed, e.g. because of lost notify?) At least once sentence to the effect of "because it allows stateless implementation" would help.
wtoorop
commented
2 years ago
Text in the draft:
Would it be possible to somehow rephrase it? It is hard to read as it is one gigantic sentence and at the same time it is not obvious from the text why the ordering must be exactly this.
Question from a new draft reader: Why the transfer should not happen if the zone is first added to the new catalog and only the the
cooproperty is added to later? (Or the transfer of the first zone is delayed, e.g. because of lost notify?) At least once sentence to the effect of "because it allows stateless implementation" would help.