Re: [Doh] Working Group Session Agenda @ Prague

["Livingood, Jason" <[e-mail]>]

Yeah, it’s a tight timeline for sure. I know for my slides (I just did a 1st draft) I’d talk for 2 – 3 mins and the rest can be Q&A. I could envision a scenario where Jim and I do our slides back-to-back, allowing for 10-15 mins of discussion on the two.

From: Doh <[e-mail]> on behalf of Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2019 at 12:48 PM
To: Jim Reid <[e-mail]>
Cc: DoH WG <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Doh] Working Group Session Agenda @ Prague



On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 8:46 AM Jim Reid <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


> On 14 Mar 2019, at 15:36, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]<mailto:ekr@rtfm..com>> wrote:
>
> Given the extraordinary amount of discussion there has already been on-list, it's hard to imagine how we could possibly resolve these in 10 minutes each.

True. That’s why I suggested having focused discussions about them on the list. The discussions to date have gone off at a tangent (or two).

Here’s what I suggested earlier today:

I think the questions to resolve at the WG are:

1) Are the issues identified in draft-livingood-doh-implementation-risks-issues valid/reasonable and does the WG want to work on them?
2) Are the issues identified in draft-reid-doh-operator valid/reasonable and does the WG want to work on them?

And if the answers to q1 or q2 are no, the followup question would be:
        what, if anything, needs to be done to the draft(s) to make them WG compatible?


I hope the WG can concentrate on these questions in the run-up to Prague.

That seems.... optimistic... but in any case, that still calls into question why we need 20 min of presentation time followed by effectively no time for discussion.

-Ekr