Tim and all, On Wed, 20 May 2015 10:03:27 -0400 Tim Wicinski <[email protected]> wrote:
> During the previous Call for Adoption a number of participants expressed > interest in adopting this work. WG members felt it needed some > improvements, but thought it had potential. The authors addressed the > issues and feel it meets what the working group was seeking, and have > requested that we initiate a call for adoption. > > If the working group adopts this document, it only means it wishes to > study this solution more carefully. The working group may still > determine to not move forward with it. > > The draft is available here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wing-dprive-dnsodtls/ > Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption > by , and comments to the list, clearly stating your view. > > Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc. This document is deep and wide, so I doubt that it can actually go forward as a single document. It seems to contain a mix of ideas, suggestions, and discussion, some related to DNSoD in particular and some that will apply to any encrypted DNS transport (for example, the increased packet size indeed needs to be addressed somehow, the proposal to multiplex has merit, the issue of which port to use will exist everywhere, ...). I think that I support adoption as a discussion piece. My feeling is that it will end up as 2 or 3 documents in the end - possibly with only 1 or 2 ending up as RFCs, of course. :) I am willing to review! Cheers, -- Shane _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
