Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-iana-cons-04: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-iana-cons/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Holding this point because we should discuss it; this might be a problem to be solved by a different document, in which case I'll lift it. Section 8 of RFC8126 says that bis documents should update the reference in IANA registries to replace obsolete documents with not-obsolete ones. It appears that 3658 didn't have a "bis" document but clearly was replaced by three others. I don't really understand how they fully obsolete 3658 if there are still registries hanging out there. Regardless, perhaps this draft is an opportunity to update the reference to these registries? Or is 3658 not "really" obsolete? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Nit: Please expand DS and NSEC3 on first use. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
