On Jun 18, 2021, at 7:43 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> 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.
The WG can work on the already-adopted unauthenticated use case, and the fully-authenticated use case can catch up when there are authors interested in keeping the discussion on their protocol moving. --Paul Hoffman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
