Jim We're not ignoring TLD operators. But the TLD operator space is not 100% technical, and we feel that the work done with the SLD space will be applicable to the TLD space. We also feel that working on the TLD resolver issue will rathole thinking into non-technical issues.
If you think this is incorrect, we'd like to hear that. Tim On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Jim Reid <j...@rfc1035.com> wrote: > On 19 Jul 2018, at 19:30, Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > For the time being, we would like to bypass the TLD server operator > > perspective. While we are in this phase of discussion, the chairs would > > like everyone to follow these guidelines: > > > > - Focus on *what* is needed. > > This seems wrong to me. Sorry. > > If TLD operators are to be bypassed at this stage, how can the WG get a > clear understanding of what's needed? I think operators of "important" auth > servers have to be part of the discussion from the outset. If not, the WG > may well come up with a solution that busy authoritative servers can't or > won't deploy. > >
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
