I believe when Brian sent the call out, he did say "The focus of the call is the protocol defined in the draft." The details do need to be fleshed out, but the chairs felt the working group saw this as a starting point.
Also, as it was pointed out, the chairs have not seen any proposals involving fully-authenticated encryption. This will allow some focus. It could very well be that the working group adopts this, and can't come to agreement on solutions. tim On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 4:02 PM Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote: > On Feb 8, 2021, at 12:11, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Without a fleshwd-out proposal for a fully-authenticated protocol to > compare to, saying that this WG should not try to fulfill its charter to > help encrypt recursive to authoritative traffic just seems wrong. > > We went over this in great detail with Peter van Dijk’s “put pubkey in the > DS record” proposal where he wrote something fleshed out and we discussed > it at great length, touching on things like RRT’s vs parent or child being > in change control vs TLSA _prefix records on NS records vs domain records. > > We are discussing disagreement on basic concepts here, not on finishing up > details after WG adoption of the idea. The only consensus I’ve seen so far > is the problem statement. > > Once we get a rough consensus on a type of solution, we can think about > fleshing it out. This document is fleshed out but doesn’t seem[*] to have > consensus on its basic premise of its solution. > > Paul > [*] the chairs will make that call > _______________________________________________ > dns-privacy mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy >
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
