Re: [dns-privacy] How do we want to use draft-ietf-dprive-phase2-requirements?

I also prefer #4.

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 12:45 PM Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
wrote:

> Does anyone else have an opinion on this?
>
> On 4/19/21 5:13 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:
> > All,
> >      As was raised on the thread discussing suggestions for the
> > requirements draft, there is some question on how the WG wants to use
> > draft-ietf-dprive-phase2-requirements in progressing our
> > recursive-to-authoritative privacy work item. The draft currently has
> > one sub-section that describes requirements (5.1) and another section
> > that describes optional features (5.2), albeit with 2119 SHOULDs.
> >
> >      My question to the WG is how do we want to use this draft? I see
> > four possible approaches, but I am sure someone will point out others.
> >
> > 1. Strictly requirements - these would be MUST-level functions that the
> > WG determines have to be supported by any solutions draft.
> >
> > 2. Strictly design considerations - these would be functional areas that
> > the WG determines need to be considered, but not necessarily included,
> > by any solutions draft.
> >
> > 3. Requirements & design considerations - This is generally where the
> > current draft sits IMO.
> >
> > 4. Drop the draft and let the solutions flow.
> >
> > Let's discuss the focus of the draft and then we can determine what
> > updates are needed/necessary.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Brian
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> dns-privacy mailing list
> dns-privacy@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
>