On Tue, 2021-04-20 at 16:59 +0000, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Apr 19, 2021, at 2:13 PM, Brian Haberman <br...@innovationslab.net> wrote: > > My question to the WG is how do we want to use this draft? I see > > four possible approaches, but I am sure someone will point out others. > > > > 1. Strictly requirements - these would be MUST-level functions that the > > WG determines have to be supported by any solutions draft. > > > > 2. Strictly design considerations - these would be functional areas that > > the WG determines need to be considered, but not necessarily included, > > by any solutions draft. > > > > 3. Requirements & design considerations - This is generally where the > > current draft sits IMO. > > > > 4. Drop the draft and let the solutions flow. > > As a document author, I prefer #4 but with a modification: every solution > document must have an honest, readable Security Considerations section that > covers the design considerations. By "honest", I mean that the text there > needs to have WG consensus, including of the people who have a different > preferred solution. > > My rationale for no longer needing a separate document is that the WG > discussion of adopting the opportunistic/unauthenticated draft, and the > possible adoption of the fully-authenticated draft, has pretty much fully > brought out all the requirements and design considerations for both > proposals.
This makes sense to me. The explored solution space (which is way bigger than the viable solution space!) has covered so much ground, we've basically already seen it all. So, it is better to judge each proposal on its own, honestly stated indeed, merits (and demerits). Kind regards, -- Peter van Dijk PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/ _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
