On Apr 19, 2021, at 2:13 PM, Brian Haberman <[email protected]> wrote: > My question to the WG is how do we want to use this draft? I see > four possible approaches, but I am sure someone will point out others. > > 1. Strictly requirements - these would be MUST-level functions that the > WG determines have to be supported by any solutions draft. > > 2. Strictly design considerations - these would be functional areas that > the WG determines need to be considered, but not necessarily included, > by any solutions draft. > > 3. Requirements & design considerations - This is generally where the > current draft sits IMO. > > 4. Drop the draft and let the solutions flow.
As a document author, I prefer #4 but with a modification: every solution document must have an honest, readable Security Considerations section that covers the design considerations. By "honest", I mean that the text there needs to have WG consensus, including of the people who have a different preferred solution. My rationale for no longer needing a separate document is that the WG discussion of adopting the opportunistic/unauthenticated draft, and the possible adoption of the fully-authenticated draft, has pretty much fully brought out all the requirements and design considerations for both proposals. --Paul Hoffman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
