On Mar 17, 2021, at 7:37 PM, Tommy Pauly <[email protected]> wrote: > > As an author, I support adoption as experimental. To Paul’s email, I also am > quite happy to have change control governed by the WG.
Great, but: > To the OHTTP discussion, I’m fine with having the direction be to use OHTTP > for ODoH, but I personally believe that even in the best case, the timelines > and deployment considerations make it more practical to have an experimental > ODoH ship prior to a version that uses OHTTP. This makes no sense. If you have a non-standard experimental spec that you are already implementing, but a forthcoming different spec whose base is being developed in another WG, you asking people to work on the will-be-obsoleted protocol wastes many people's time. If you want to just document what you are doing now, take your draft to the Independent Submission Editor as informational. The ISE will ask if you got external reviews, and it is quite reasonable for you to ask for those reviews. Now that I understand the authors' intentions better, I withdraw my support for adoption. --Paul Hoffman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
