Re: [dns-privacy] DPRIVE next steps

Just one comment for now, before setting out into commuter-land:  evaluation is not the same as requirements.  I heard an AD statement at the mic to avoid adding any kind of requirements document, and I agree with that, as, I’m sure, do many others in the WG.

Allison

On Nov 24, 2014, at 5:02 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <ietf@hallambaker.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dns-privacy mailing list
> dns-privacy@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy