Hi Karl, On 15/08/2019 14:07, Henderson, Karl wrote: > Stephen, > > Thanks for your thorough and thoughtful review. > > To answer question #0, we are aiming for RFC with Informational > category. This is in line with other operational considerations such > as RFC2541->RFC6781 and RFC4472.
Ok, so the eventual aim is to document the results of the analysis as those affect how one might deploy ADOT sensibly? (But not to document all the steps in the analysis that lead to those results?) If so, that could make sense yes. Might be early to start though and the current text doesn't really do that, but is (I think) for now more describing the analyses you think need doing. Is that about right? And to be clear: I think ending up with such a document is a fine plan if it also provides guidance on how to achieve the aimed-for privacy benefits. My concern is more that it may be hard (and ultimately unnecessary) to try get WG consensus on text that describes the work to be done (which'll likely include experiments for which in the end there's no need to report) rather than the results after the work is done. Cheers, S. > > I will discuss your other questions and suggestion for a non-operator > author with my co-authors. > > Regards, Karl > > > _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing > list [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy >
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
