On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 8:59 PM Christian Huitema <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 6/7/2021 6:50 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote: > > Hi, Lucas, > > On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 4:22 PM Lucas Pardue <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > Speaking as an individual. > > Through the lens of server-side observation and linking of clients, I > think Christian makes astute observations on some common concerns and > QUIC-specific ones. Roy too makes some great additional observations about > the context of discussion. > > > Agreed. Very helpful. > > > > It seems to me this topic might well do with some time to draw out the > considerations for documentation. However, the applicability draft is > already through a second round of WGLC, and that timeline seems too tight > for inclusion of such considerations. I would seem to me that the PEARG > (Privacy Enhancements and Assessments Research Group) [1] is ideally suited > towards housing effort on deeper/broader analysis of privacy aspects of > protocol evolution (I might even stick a note in for multipath TCP as > something that moves the needle on privacy of "legacy" application > protcols). > > > Ignoring the question of PEARG interest in this topic for now, I'm assuming > that these observations would likely end up in an Informational RFC, is > that right? > > An IRTF RG can publish Informational and Experimental RFCs, but not BCPs or > standards-track documents that must be published in the IETF stream, so > that would be an important question to answer early. > > That. > > The IRTF is not the IETF. IRTF research groups are best for analyzing > difficult research issues. But if we end up doing something like "privacy > considerations for QUIC clients", IMHO that belongs in the IETF, not the > IRTF. > +1 Behcet > -- Christian Huitema >
