> On 26 Oct 2015, at 17:26, 神明達哉 <[email protected]> wrote: > > IIRC when we > adopted DNS/TLS from several candidates the decision was to focus on > this particular solution while allowing flexibility of discussions > other ideas at a lower priority, so we can at least publish one > concrete solution document as soon as possible. I have no problem of > discussing DNS/DTLS itself, but if my understanding about the wg focus > is correct, I don't think it a good idea to delay publishing DNS/TLS > because of it implication with DNS/DTLS. In that sense merging these > two drafts doesn't seem to be a good idea to me. Extracting and > deferring some parts of DNS/TLS may be acceptable if the resulting > DNS/TLS draft is still a self-contained document to be published.
I strongly agree with this position. I believe the working group should produce 3 documents here: 1) This draft - the technical discussion of DNS-over-TLS: I believe this document is mature enough to move forward as a standalone document (possibly with some minor re-working of section 5, to further clarify the scope with respect to authentication and add other references?). As detailed in the implementation section it also has several implementations. 2) The technical discussion of DNS-over-DTLS: I believe that document is still under active review and development. 3) I agree there should be a separate document to describe further details of 'Authentication of DNS-over-(D)TLS connections’, and I am willing to work on that. I think this separation is the most pragmatic and flexible way to allowing the working group to deliver DNS Privacy in a timely fashion, without introducing unnecessary dependancies between the solutions. Sara. _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
