> On 19 Oct 2021, at 22:28, Ben Schwartz <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 5:16 PM Brian Haberman <[email protected]> > wrote: > Hi Ben, > > On 10/19/21 9:14 AM, Ben Schwartz wrote: > > I do think the DoQ draft is harder to read because of the 0-RTT text, which > > is spread across several sections. > > > > I don't see why the DoQ draft would be blocked by the Early Data draft, > > seeing as RFC 7858 was not blocked. > > I am not sure how RFC 7858 is relevant. It was published 4 years before > the 0-RTT draft came into existence. > > Are you suggesting that DoQ should not mention anything about 0-RTT? > > Saying literally nothing might be a bit too much, but I think it can > essentially defer the issue or reference another draft. > > I don't think DoQ deployment is being delayed by lack of an RFC number. If > the draft ends up in the REF state for a while due to an unpublished > dependency, I don't think that's a problem.
Christian pointed out that the usefulness of 0-RTT is such that implementors will be keen to test and use it as soon as they deploy DoQ, so I think there is significant value in both including it in the document, and not holding up the publication of the RFC. Given that DoQ is in WGLC and the early-data draft is not even officially resurrected from expiry yet, it could be 1 or more years behind DoQ. That uncertainty is something we can avoid. Many organisations (enterprises, policy bodies, etc.) don’t appreciate the multiple stages of review prior to publication and do take meaning from the RFC being published. Sara. _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
