Re: [Doh] Working Group Session Agenda @ Prague

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 7:23 AM Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:

>
>
> > On 13 Mar 2019, at 22:02, Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:
> >
> > Given the volume of discussion on-list about the latter two talks, and
> the absence of any significant time for open discussion, what do you expect
> us to gain from this session?  I fully support spending the bulk of the
> time here on resolver-associated, but I'm concerned that having the same
> presentation given twice in the balance of time.  It could be three if you
> wanted to use the last 10 minutes on draft-bertola-bcp-doh-clients.
> >
> > Having a clear goal in mind might help this be a productive use of time;
> and - if I might suggest - a shorter period of presentation (maybe Jim can
> negotiate with his co-author) followed by a very narrowly scoped discussion
> would be useful. There are lots of different concerns in these drafts, but
> maybe we can find one key point to concentrate on.  I don't see us being
> able to settle one, let alone two, but we might get further into a single
> topic.
>
> Martin, I’ll be happy to work with Jason and the WG co-chairs so we all
> make the most productive use of the WG time in Prague.
>
> However it seems unlikely there would be "the same presentation given
> twice” even if that discussion didn’t take place. The two drafts are very
> different, albeit with some overlap. And maybe that overlapping material
> (bypass concerns mostly?) should get moved into yet another draft which
> might well end up being for another WG.
>
> draft-livingood-doh-implementation-risks-issues and
> draft-reid-doh-operator discuss quite distinct aspects of the impact of DoH
> deployment/uptake. IMO both should be considered separately by the WG. It
> would be a pity if they were somehow smashed together into a single
> discussion topic for Prague. If that did happen, I fear the discussion
> would lack focus and probably be inconclusive.
>
> 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?
>

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.

-Ekr

> It would be good if further discussion on the list focused on these 2 or 3
> questions.
>

_______________________________________________
> Doh mailing list
> Doh@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh
>