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

Hi,

I thinks it’s ok to do Experimental. If the authors care, that might be a
discussion point. My perspective is that there are many worse documents
that are unimplemented but that enjoy “Proposed Standard” status.

thanks,
Rob

On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 20:12 Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
wrote:

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