Scott,The intended status field only allows for a few fixed values. There isn't a way, that I know of, to add free form text with the type of description you are requesting.
Is the concern that the intended status will influence WGLC comments? Does the fact that we will not request publication until there are 2 or more interoperable implementations affect your thought process?
Would descriptive text in the text starting WGLC that points out the process suffice?
Regards, Brian On 3/6/23 8:02 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
Thanks, Eric. Given what you and Tim have said, I’m still concerned that the document has a header that says “Intended status: Standards Track”. If the status of the document is to be determined later, that header should be removed for now and text should be added to explain the process being followed here. Scott From: dns-privacy <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Eric Vyncke (evyncke) Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 1:48 AM To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]>; [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. 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]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Friday, 3 March 2023 at 19:13 To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] Intended Status for draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing From: Tim Wicinski <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 12:59 PM To: Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[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
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
