Any other volunteers? On 8/17/21 8:16 AM, Brian Haberman wrote: > All, > I want to start working through the details of what Stephen is > proposing below; beginning to do operational experiments to determine > which approach, or approaches, may be viable in the long term. To carry > out such experiments, I believe we need the following: > > 1. A stable I-D for an approach to providing privacy between recursive > resolvers and authoritative servers, > > 2. An implementation of the stable I-D in a recursive resolver and in an > authoritative server implementation, > > 3. At least one authoritative server operator willing to deploy the > experimental implementation, > > 4. At least one recursive resolver operator willing to deploy the > experimental implementation, > > 5. An agreed upon set of metrics to assess the operational behavior of > the approach, > > Is there a major item missing from the list above? Other aspects of > carrying out such an experiment? > > Are there any volunteers to start working on details of such an experiment? > > Regards, > Brian > > On 8/2/21 9:22 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: >> >> Hiya, >> >> On 02/08/2021 05:21, Martin Thomson wrote: >>> If we decided on a single answer for the first and in the negative >>> for the second, would that make authentication viable? >> >> IMO we ought not just "decide" on most of the tricky ADoX >> issues but we should rather document the options sufficient >> to allow people to do experiments and then wait and see how >> those experiments go. I'd say a stable I-D is probably >> enough documentation to allow for experiments and I'd hope >> such experiments could be done in 6-12 months. I'd expect >> we might still be left with a few tricky issues, but that >> a number of those (where we might make wrong choices now) >> would be resolved once people try 'em out. >> >> So my suggestion is to review the I-Ds we have with a view >> to figuring out what's missing that's needed to allow such >> experiments, fix that and then "park" those I-Ds 'till we >> get results. That could be similar to how drafts are declared >> to be "interop drafts" in other WGs or could be a WGLC-like >> process. >> >> If we decided to try go that way, I'd be happy to try help >> get some such experiment going. >> >> Cheers, >> S. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dns-privacy mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy >> >
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
