Brian, I've just confirmed that xml2rfc will not accept an input file that's missing the "category" attribute from the <rfc> element, so the Intended Status field can't be omitted. Given that the charter says that the working group's effort in this area is Experimental, I'd be more comfortable with "Experimental" as the intended status until a determination is made to change that status.
Yes, I am concerned that the intended status will influence comments and other contributions. For example, I am much less concerned about an experimental document saying "An authoritative server SHOULD implement and deploy DNS-over-TLS (DoT) on TCP port 853" and "An authoritative server SHOULD implement and deploy DNS-over-QUIC (DoQ) on UDP port 853" than I am about a standards track document saying the same thing. Context is significant. Additionally, Verisign has disclosed intellectual property associated with the draft; license terms have not yet been declared. The intended status is a factor in the development of those license terms. > Does the fact that we will not request publication until there are 2 or more > interoperable implementations affect your thought process? It does, and yes, descriptive text would help. I'd like to see text in the draft itself because readers may not know what was said during the last call announcement. There's no chance for confusion if the draft itself describes the process being followed for its development. Scott > -----Original Message----- > From: dns-privacy <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Brian > Haberman > Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 8:09 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] Intended Status for draft-ietf- > dprive-unilateral-probing > > 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:shollenbeck=40verisi > > [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://secure- > web.cisco.com/16BYXFrcpPCVmd4F0Tv5zDEqyWWdOx4rOfQ0c57V2 > > > KrgUx7rs9UIGpV8AAhnLK6eyXRb6Bon5TzrGkYoSjPBYVQepnOoG9OGQwIFoBOH > pWCPywQ > > > UOxmaQcxRIbVt4eJI6BUOjFUplmSK_paSk_ABBmtKzdKbHnke2vgZ3oP1yyw1qlw > pE41_A > > > bFk_ZxWjYb9TeKjtOdnFUXtVfNsVtJT2c6Gp9CG03QxNIttVfWMgujVWazmelmmY > DpEsu4 > > f3JJ0wGVypM3ElJeXkWn0n6hlAZ0Zj2WSO- > v4Xw5dii_d2WTUbOdqAEzvIHUd_p3qU_ITF > > /https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fdns-privacy _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
