On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 10:13 AM Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Greetings again. Based on the WG discussion of the last few weeks, we can > see that the folks with the fully-authenticated use case do not yet agree > on a signaling mechanism. Given that, we have just published a new version > of draft-pp-dprive-common-features that lists "SVCB on the client side" as > one discovery mechanism, and a new version of > draft-ietf-dprive-unauth-to-authoritative that points to that mechanism. > When the folks with the fully-authenticated use case do agree on a > signaling mechanism, that can be added to the -common-features draft. > > We would like the WG chairs to have a formal call for > draft-pp-dprive-common-features to be a WG document soon so we know how to > deal with it before the draft cutoff before the next IETF meeting. If the > WG wants it as a WG document, great; if not, we would pull back all those > features into draft-ietf-dprive-unauth-to-authoritative and the WG would > have to decide what to do for the eventual fully-authenticated draft. > I think (unsurprisingly) I am not in favor of this. Let's figure out what we are trying to do and roughly the approach we want to follow. Until then, adopting drafts is premature. -Ekr > --Peter and Paul_______________________________________________ > 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
