> -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> > Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 2:51 PM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com> > Cc: dpr...@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ext] [dns-privacy] Intended Status for draft-ietf- > dprive-unilateral-probing > > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links > or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is > safe. > > On Mar 1, 2023, at 10:46 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott > <shollenbeck=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > After a recent-re-read of draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing and its > normative dependencies, I have a strong belief that the draft describes more of > an experiment than a Proposed Standard. > > All protocols before they are deployed are experiments. > > > The reason we need "opportunistic" and "unilateral" actions is because there > are gaps in specification, implementation, and deployment of services for > recursive-authoritative encryption. > > That is not what the WG decided. It decided that opportunistic was sufficient for > some threat models. Other threat models have the gaps you discuss.
[SAH] WG decisions aren't immutable. I posted this as a proposal for reconsideration. > > Experimental status worked for QNAME minimization. > > That's irrelevant. > > > It can work here, too. > > So could Informational; that is also irrelevant. [SAH] It's hardly irrelevant given the successful approach taken with QNAME minimization. It's a valid example of how Experimental status could work. Informational could also work. It's not as accurate, but it is another option. > The definition for the Experimental maturity level, taken from RFC 2026, is: > > 4.2.1 Experimental > > The "Experimental" designation typically denotes a specification that > is part of some research or development effort. Such a specification > is published for the general information of the Internet technical > community and as an archival record of the work, subject only to > editorial considerations and to verification that there has been > adequate coordination with the standards process (see below). An > Experimental specification may be the output of an organized Internet > research effort (e.g., a Research Group of the IRTF), an IETF Working > Group, or it may be an individual contribution. > > This draft is not a research effort, nor is it a development effort. It is a protocol > that can be used (and, to a limited extent, is already being used) on the Internet > today. [SAH] I am suggesting that it SHOULD be described as a research effort because of the specification gaps. Is it really a great idea to publish a Proposed Standard that includes a normative reference that explicitly says that it wasn't designed for this specific purpose? One "already being used" example that I've recently seen (https://ant.isi.edu/events/dinr2023/S/s43.pdf) describes itself as "research" and an "experiment". Not as a prototype, or a proof of concept, but as research and an experiment. That description aligns much more closely with Experimental status than Proposed Standard status. I've asked Wes privately if he could provide his own perspective. Scott _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
