[Doh] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on charter-ietf-doh-00-12: (with COMMENT)

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Thu, 28 September 2017 03:11 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: doh@ietf.org
Delivered-To: doh@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38626135251; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 20:11:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: doh-chairs@ietf.org, doh@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.62.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <150656826318.13687.17985643866040126735.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 20:11:03 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/siOmaML_qlyo9u5ldTlJmjJ_Z1k>
Subject: [Doh] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on charter-ietf-doh-00-12: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: doh@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: DNS Over HTTPS <doh.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/doh>, <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/doh/>
List-Post: <mailto:doh@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh>, <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 03:11:03 -0000

Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-doh-00-12: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)



The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-doh/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think this new text about JS is going in the right direction, but perhaps it
straddles the line too much.

Say that -- contra the text here -- we discovered some respect in which it was
more convenient to design the protocol in a way that made JS break. Would the
charter require us not to do that? I think the answer is "no", but I just want
to verify that.