On 4/19/21 1:58 PM, Danny McPherson wrote: > On 2021-04-19 13:52, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> >> I don't think so, because the WG has been actively developing those >> requirements without the draft moving forward, just by having good WG >> discussions. > > Not sure what that means. Is there a summary of those "good WG > discussions" and where consensus may or may not exist? > > I'd prefer to have some succinct and comprehensive requirements here > before finishing all the solutioning... >
The goal of the referenced work item is to ensure that the WG participants agree on the requirements. Having that be done in a draft is far cleaner than relying on various people's recollections of discussions. If everyone goes back to the minutes of our session during IETF 110, Benno explicitly told the WG that he is happy to work on a revision *with WG input*. I view Scott's messages to the ML as being an attempt to provide such feedback to the draft authors on what he sees as useful changes to the draft. Scott's suggestions should be discussed to see what suggestions have consensus. Regards, Brian
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
