Hello Scott, If the document is backed by 2 (or more) interoperable implementations, then I am sure that the IESG (and myself as the responsible AD) will see no problem in the document intended status change. Unusual but this won't be an issue.
Regards -éric From: dns-privacy <[email protected]> on behalf of "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email protected]> Date: Friday, 3 March 2023 at 19:13 To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] Intended Status for draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing From: Tim Wicinski <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 12:59 PM To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] 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. All As Brian and I have stated a few times, and Eric our AD has supported, the plan with this draft is once the authors are ready is to take it to WGLC, and then park it while we wait for implementations, and some signs of interoperability testing. Once we and the working group feel there has been reasonable progress, we will un-park the document. At the time we un-park it to move it to the IESG we can have the discussion about Standards Track, Experimental, or Informational. To have that discussion now serves no real purpose (in my mind). The chairs will however hold the document status as something for the WG to decide on. [SAH] Will that include potential revision of the working group charter if the working group decides to deviate from Experimental? Scott
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
