On 2/27/15 10:50 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > > On 2/27/15 10:46 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:38:53AM -0500, >> Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email protected]> wrote >> a message of 78 lines which said: >> >>> BTW are we planning to IETF last call this doc and publish as an RFC >>> or is this internal only? >> >> The charter is silent about it. My goal is certainly to have this >> document published as a RFC, we need clear documentation of privacy >> properties of IETF protocols, like RFC 6973 says. >> >> Now, whether or not an IETF Last Call is necessary, I don't know. >> >> > > Warren and I have discussed this, though not recently. The consensus > (from the group and from ADs) is published as an RFC. I know a few have > felt the IETF are awash in "problem statements". >
I find more benefit in the problem statement RFCs than in the use-cases/requirements/architectures RFCs that wither on the vine and don't reflect reality when the protocol specifications are published. Regards, Brian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
