Just one comment for now, before setting out into commuter-land: evaluation is not the same as requirements. I heard an AD statement at the mic to avoid adding any kind of requirements document, and I agree with that, as, I’m sure, do many others in the WG.
Allison On Nov 24, 2014, at 5:02 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Tim Wicinski <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> (I was waiting to confirm the wording with Warren, but I failed to remember >> he was away last week). >> >> Coming out of IETF91, we saw good discussion around the problem statement; >> the beginnings of a discussion around evaluation metrics; and several >> different solutions searching for the appropriate problem. > > And how do we go about that? > > The reason I am very skeptical of the value of requirements exercises > in IETF is that my experience is that they are almost invariably a > proxy fight for the solution space and in particular a fight to frame > the requirements so that a particular favored solution is the winner. > > Which is why I believe that requirements capture should be driven by > use cases and there should be NO discussion of whether the use cases > are valid or not. Bear me out on this, I see no point in spending six > weeks arguing about whether a use case is important or not or what the > relative order of priority should be. Such efforts are invariably an > underhand approach to constraining the solution space so that the > favored proposal wins. > > > Rather than developing a requirements document, a Wiki would be much > more appropriate. And no need to turn it into an RFC either. > > I am sure that if you narrow the scope of the work down it is possible > to find a viewpoint from which the differences between them disappear. > But what is the point in doing that? The point is to make a decision > and to make a decision, differences are useful. > > >> Then we would like to see some action on the evaluation document. I know >> when I spoke with Allison they were having some resource scheduling >> conflicts, and I had offered to assist with the document if there was a >> working outline. Perhaps others will feel so inclined. > > I submitted such a framework some time ago: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hallambaker-dnse-02 > > _______________________________________________ > dns-privacy mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
