All,
The conversations around this topic have gone silent. Are there
other perspectives that we need to understand?
Tim and I are discussing an interim in September to get some
focused discussion on requirements, issues, and gating factors. Please
continue to raise items that you think warrant consideration for the
recursive to authoritative privacy work item. Without content, it won't
make much sense to hold an interim.
Regards,
Brian
On 7/19/18 2:10 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:
> All,
> The chairs would like to get the WG discussion started on exploring
> privacy solutions for recursive resolver to/from authoritative server
> exchanges. To start, we want to focus on *use cases and requirements*.
> In our view, the WG needs to consider the:
>
> - User perspective
> - Implementer perspective
> - 2nd-level server operator perspective
> - Recursive resolver operator perspective
>
> For the time being, we would like to bypass the TLD server operator
> perspective. While we are in this phase of discussion, the chairs would
> like everyone to follow these guidelines:
>
> - Focus on *what* is needed.
> - Avoid *how* to achieve it.
> - Consider both ends of DNS the exchange.
> - Scenarios will frame the discussion.
>
> The chairs will start a mailing list thread for each of the four
> discussion points. As ideas are presented, we will start aggregating the
> details in a GitHub repo.
>
> Regards,
> Brian & Tim
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dns-privacy mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
