On 9/16/17 12:15 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 16/09/17 17:07, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
We had a re-run of the same issues with DPRIV which began with the
assertion that a solution must be found within a year.
I don't recall any such assertion. IIRC, DPRIVE was always
considered as the start, within the IETF, of a marathon.
(At least by anyone credible.)
Perhaps you can provide a pointer to that assertion?
Aside from that, I'm not clear who you think is being
ignored with the current proposal, nor what you think
we ought wait upon, so it'd help me understand your
objections if you could clarify those aspects. (FWIW,
as of now, I don't share your concerns in those respects
at all.)
S.
As DPRIV co-chair, I agree with Stephen's assertion that this was always
going to be a marathon. Now Phillip is correct in some respects - I
felt *a* solution for the stub to recursive resolver piece could be
worked out within a year. But I've always felt the IETF was all about
iteration: Let's come up with a solution; let's write some code and
deploy some infrastructure; let's measure the behavior and the
usefulness of what was done; and in the interim let's keep looking at
other ideas.
The next steps within DPRIV are around the recursive resolvers talking
to authoritative servers; and this is something Terry (our wonderful AD)
and myself see as a much harder problem, and one most likely that will
end in failure.
tim