Does anyone else have an opinion on this? On 4/19/21 5:13 PM, Brian Haberman wrote: > All, > As was raised on the thread discussing suggestions for the > requirements draft, there is some question on how the WG wants to use > draft-ietf-dprive-phase2-requirements in progressing our > recursive-to-authoritative privacy work item. The draft currently has > one sub-section that describes requirements (5.1) and another section > that describes optional features (5.2), albeit with 2119 SHOULDs. > > 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. > > Let's discuss the focus of the draft and then we can determine what > updates are needed/necessary. > > Regards, > Brian >
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
