Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] WGLC : draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing

Tim & I checked in with our AD on this. Given that the charter text calls
out Experimental, that is a binding agreement with the IESG.

Our choices are simple:

1) publish as Experimental
2) re-charter

If the intended status had just been in the milestones, we would have more
flexibility.

Let’s constructively discuss the above options.

Regards,
Brian

On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 4:53 PM Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck=
40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dns-privacy <dns-privacy-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Paul
> Hoffman
> > Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 4:02 PM
> > To: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
> > Cc: dns-privacy@ietf.org
> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] WGLC :
> draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-
> > probing
> >
> > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not
> click links
> > or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
> is
> > safe.
> >
> > On Jun 5, 2023, at 12:45 PM, Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The Chairs and Eric are working on the asumption that the document
> will be
> > parked waiting for another implementation or two and some interopt
> testing
> > >
> > > However, we are usinfg this time for Early area reviews which will
> feel will
> > bei invaluable moving forward.
> > > We focused on the Security area, Int Area, and those pesky DNS folks to
> > review the documennt
> > >
> > > I believe at IETF 117 there was some discussion of some interopt
> testing
> > during the hackathon?
> > > I may have made that up also.
> > >
> > > The authors have been working diligently updating their work, and Paul
> is just
> > letting the WG know they've done their part.
> >
> > Er, no, we really do believe that all the interop testing done at IETF
> 116, which
> > is reported in the draft, is sufficient. It is certainly more than the
> amount that
> > many other protocols get before they are published as RFCs.
> >
> > How much more interop testing is needed before the document can proceed?
> > There will be parties like Verisign that will never want this to be on
> standards
> > track, which is fine, but that has never been an acceptable reason to
> block
> > progress when there are others who have already implemented it.
>
> [SAH] To be clear: Verisign, an authoritative name server operator, is not
> opposed to this draft being on the standards track. I support publication
> in a manner that's consistent with the WG charter. I *am* opposed to the
> draft being a candidate for standards track publication as long as the
> charter says "experimental".
>
> Scott
>
> _______________________________________________
> dns-privacy mailing list
> dns-privacy@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
>