Hi, I thinks it’s ok to do Experimental. If the authors care, that might be a discussion point. My perspective is that there are many worse documents that are unimplemented but that enjoy “Proposed Standard” status.
thanks, Rob On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 20:12 Brian Haberman <br...@innovationslab.net> wrote: > 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= > 40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: dns-privacy <dns-privacy-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Paul >> Hoffman >> > Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 4:02 PM >> > To: Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> >> > Cc: dns-privacy@ietf.org >> > 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 <tjw.i...@gmail.com> 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 >> dns-privacy@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy >> > _______________________________________________ > dns-privacy mailing list > dns-privacy@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy >
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
