Tim & I checked in with our AD on this. Given that the charter text calls out Experimental, that is a binding agreement with the IESG.
Our choices are simple: 1) publish as Experimental 2) re-charter If the intended status had just been in the milestones, we would have more flexibility. Let’s constructively discuss the above options. Regards, Brian On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 4:53 PM Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck= [email protected]> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dns-privacy <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Paul > Hoffman > > Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 4:02 PM > > To: Tim Wicinski <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] WGLC : > 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 Jun 5, 2023, at 12:45 PM, Tim Wicinski <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The Chairs and Eric are working on the asumption that the document > will be > > parked waiting for another implementation or two and some interopt > testing > > > > > > However, we are usinfg this time for Early area reviews which will > feel will > > bei invaluable moving forward. > > > We focused on the Security area, Int Area, and those pesky DNS folks to > > review the documennt > > > > > > I believe at IETF 117 there was some discussion of some interopt > testing > > during the hackathon? > > > I may have made that up also. > > > > > > The authors have been working diligently updating their work, and Paul > is just > > letting the WG know they've done their part. > > > > Er, no, we really do believe that all the interop testing done at IETF > 116, which > > is reported in the draft, is sufficient. It is certainly more than the > amount that > > many other protocols get before they are published as RFCs. > > > > How much more interop testing is needed before the document can proceed? > > There will be parties like Verisign that will never want this to be on > standards > > track, which is fine, but that has never been an acceptable reason to > block > > progress when there are others who have already implemented it. > > [SAH] To be clear: Verisign, an authoritative name server operator, is not > opposed to this draft being on the standards track. I support publication > in a manner that's consistent with the WG charter. I *am* opposed to the > draft being a candidate for standards track publication as long as the > charter says "experimental". > > Scott > > _______________________________________________ > dns-privacy mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy >
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
