Re: [dns-privacy] Moving forward on draft-ietf-dprive-unauth-to-authoritative

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 10:13 AM Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
wrote:

> Greetings again. Based on the WG discussion of the last few weeks, we can
> see that the folks with the fully-authenticated use case do not yet agree
> on a signaling mechanism. Given that, we have just published a new version
> of draft-pp-dprive-common-features that lists "SVCB on the client side" as
> one discovery mechanism, and a new version of
> draft-ietf-dprive-unauth-to-authoritative that points to that mechanism.
> When the folks with the fully-authenticated use case do agree on a
> signaling mechanism, that can be added to the -common-features draft.
>
> We would like the WG chairs to have a formal call for
> draft-pp-dprive-common-features to be a WG document soon so we know how to
> deal with it before the draft cutoff before the next IETF meeting. If the
> WG wants it as a WG document, great; if not, we would pull back all those
> features into draft-ietf-dprive-unauth-to-authoritative and the WG would
> have to decide what to do for the eventual fully-authenticated draft.
>

I think (unsurprisingly) I am not in favor of this. Let's figure out what
we are trying to do and roughly the approach we want to follow. Until then,
adopting drafts is premature.

-Ekr

> --Peter and Paul_______________________________________________
> dns-privacy mailing list
> dns-privacy@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
>