On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 3:44 PM Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com> wrote:
> *[SAH] The IESG deliberately chartered this working group to “Investigate > potential solutions for adding confidentiality to DNS exchanges involving > authoritative servers” in an Experimental manner. As Brian noted, that’s a > binding agreement with the IESG. We can either do that or attempt to > re-charter the working group. I’m under the impression that Brian’s last > note to the group was a request to discuss those two options, which could > include discussion of how to conduct the experiment. It’s not an ad-hoc > process at all.* > Hi, I agree that a recharter would be required. However, what you're asking for here exceeds the requirements of a Proposed Standard, so that does seem a bit ad-hoc to me. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7127.html#section-3.1 In particular this paragraph applies: "The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies behavior that may have significant operational impact on the Internet." > I never like to read stuff like this. Each of us probably has a regulator > that annoys us in their treatment of some issue. But we can't really make > decisions based on guesses about the future actions of unnamed regulators. > I'm also sure you know the document ladder quite well, but you've used > imprecise terms here. In the first sentence, you say "IETF standards". But > the last sentence says "proposed standard". > > > > > *[SAH] I used those terms deliberately. My employer has contractual > obligations to implement a mix of IETF-developed Proposed Standard and > Standard specifications – that is, “IETF standards”. In the last sentence, > “proposed standard” specifically refers to one possible status for this > draft.* > So, your employer has contractual obligations to implement some IETF-standards track documents. I'm still a little mystified, because I don't think anyone would sign or write such an agreement for documents not-yet-written. I figured the objection would be the typical encryption-related ones (cost, observability, etc). The sort of thing we saw with HTTP2 and DoT/DoH/DoQ. But I also originally wrote that Experimental would work here, even if the label is inaccurate. thanks, Rob
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
