On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 1:39 AM, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote: > On 13 Nov 2015, at 8:28, Tim Wicinski wrote: > >> On 11/13/15 8:22 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> >>> >>> Just to be clear: do the chairs read the rough consensus to be that the >>> draft needs to remove Sections 3.2 and all of Section 4, and move them >>> to a new document? >>> >>> --Paul Hoffman >> >> >> Yes, I do (once I remembered). I am circling back with the others, but I >> believe this is the case. >> >> I'm also waiting for the -02 before actioning. > > > I propose that you also wait for the companion document that has the > material from those removed sections, plus stuff from the -over-DTLS > document. That is, this document needs to have a normative reference to new > one, not just a hole.
The plan that we'd discussed was that this document would describe how to do the DNSoTLS bit, and the new document would extend the auth profiles. This document would mention opportunistic and the case where there is an existing trust relationship. The refernce to the new document would not have to be normative, and so we could go ahead and publish this - we've heard (anecdotally) that a number of people would like to test this, but would like to see the RFC label before spending cycles... W > --Paul Hoffman > > > _______________________________________________ > dns-privacy mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
