I also prefer #4. On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 12:45 PM Brian Haberman <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
