> On Jun 20, 2021, at 3:40 AM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > In any case, to the extent to which the WG is going to work solely on the > unauthenticated version, it can do so in the existing draft. Having a draft > which purports to contain "common features" between the authenticated and > unauthenticated use cases is not helpful when basic questions remain.
My personal opinion is that unauth is a problematic half-measure, so I don’t
imagine I’ll be using it. But that’s my personal opinion, and has no bearing
on the question of whether the unauth mode should be formalized. If others see
value in it, then, absolutely, it should be formalized so that a common
understanding of how it should be done will exist, and interoperability will be
maintained.
Likewise, I REALLY WISH the authenticated mode would get moved forward more
quickly.
But tying the two together in any way at all seems bad to me. I don’t see any
value at all to turning two documents into three, with externalities, nor, if
only one of these modes becomes popular in the long run (which seems the most
probably outcome to me) in having it be expressed in an incomplete document
with an externality to another document which references a third document that
nobody cares about.
So I think I come to the same conclusion as ekr, albeit for different reasons.
-Bill
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
