Re: [Ohttp] Discovery

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin,

This is close enough for me so long as it is understood that we address 
the two issues I mentioned:

> # Enterprise controls should not be subverted, especially when it's 
> unnecessary to do so in this particular case.  Mark accurately 
> described what I was referring to.
> # The risks of use of the mechanism need to be understood as part of its 
> applicability, particularly as relates to DNS and similar and the 
> masking of C&C networks.  That harms the Internet, and so is in scope.
Eliot

On 05.07.21 06:34, Martin Thomson wrote:
> Back from a short break; I'll take the opportunity to thank folks for the constructive discussion.
>
> I'm reading from the messages here that following DoH/ADD in ruling "discovery" topics completely off-limits was unwise and that this working group shouldn't repeat that mistake.  Put that way, the flaws in the proposed charter are just obvious.
>
> I've tried to amend the discussion on scope to accommodate that feedback, along the lines Jason suggested.  That is, keep the discussion of how OHTTP is used entirely in-scope, but prioritize the core protocol work.
>
> It's a small change, so here 'tis: https://github.com/unicorn-wg/ohttp-charter/pull/3
>
> +The working group will prioritize work on the core protocol elements as
> +identified.  Specific uses of this core protocol might need to describe
> +discovery methods or rely on configuration.  The working group may discuss and
> +document different deployment models.  The working group may publish protocol
> +mechanisms that support selected deployment models.
>
> This replaces existing text prohibiting work on discovery and would be in addition to the change I suggested earlier in response to Eliot's feedback.
>
> Does that work for people?
>