Re: [dns-privacy] DPRIVE next steps

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Tim Wicinski <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> (I was waiting to confirm the wording with Warren, but I failed to remember
> he was away last week).
>
> Coming out of IETF91, we saw good discussion around the problem statement;
> the beginnings of a discussion around evaluation metrics; and several
> different solutions searching for the appropriate problem.

And how do we go about that?

The reason I am very skeptical of the value of requirements exercises
in IETF is that my experience is that they are almost invariably a
proxy fight for the solution space and in particular a fight to frame
the requirements so that a particular favored solution is the winner.

Which is why I believe that requirements capture should be driven by
use cases and there should be NO discussion of whether the use cases
are valid or not. Bear me out on this, I see no point in spending six
weeks arguing about whether a use case is important or not or what the
relative order of priority should be. Such efforts are invariably an
underhand approach to constraining the solution space so that the
favored proposal wins.


Rather than developing a requirements document, a Wiki would be much
more appropriate. And no need to turn it into an RFC either.

I am sure that if you narrow the scope of the work down it is possible
to find a viewpoint from which the differences between them disappear.
But what is the point in doing that? The point is to make a decision
and to make a decision, differences are useful.


> Then we would like to see some action on the evaluation document. I know
> when I spoke with Allison they were having some resource scheduling
> conflicts, and I had offered to assist with the document if there was a
> working outline. Perhaps others will feel so inclined.

I submitted such a framework some time ago:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hallambaker-dnse-02