Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] How do we want to use draft-ietf-dprive-phase2-requirements?

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

On Apr 19, 2021, at 2:13 PM, Brian Haberman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     My question to the WG is how do we want to use this draft? I see
> four possible approaches, but I am sure someone will point out others.
> 
> 1. Strictly requirements - these would be MUST-level functions that the
> WG determines have to be supported by any solutions draft.
> 
> 2. Strictly design considerations - these would be functional areas that
> the WG determines need to be considered, but not necessarily included,
> by any solutions draft.
> 
> 3. Requirements & design considerations - This is generally where the
> current draft sits IMO.
> 
> 4. Drop the draft and let the solutions flow.


As a document author, I prefer #4 but with a modification: every solution document must have an honest, readable Security Considerations section that covers the design considerations. By "honest", I mean that the text there needs to have WG consensus, including of the people who have a different preferred solution. 

My rationale for no longer needing a separate document is that the WG discussion of adopting the opportunistic/unauthenticated draft, and the possible adoption of the fully-authenticated draft, has pretty much fully brought out all the requirements and design considerations for both proposals. 

--Paul Hoffman