On Sep 28, 2021, at 11:34 AM, Martin Duke via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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.
It was obsoleted by RFCs 4033, 4034, and 4035. Those are not "bis" documents, they are full replacements. > I don't really understand how they fully obsolete 3658 if there > are still registries hanging out there. Please define "hanging out there". :-) The registry of interest is at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types/ds-rr-types.xhtml#ds-rr-types-1>. The "Reference" section in that registry lists "[RFC3658][RFC4034][RFC4035]". Is your objection that the registry still lists RFC 3658? If so, this seems an IANA issue, not an issue with this draft. > Regardless, perhaps this draft is an > opportunity to update the reference to these registries? The draft refers to the correct registry. > Or is 3658 not > "really" obsolete? It is really obsolete, and has been for well over a decade. Is this explanation complete enough for you to lift your DISCUSS ballot? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Nit: Please expand DS and NSEC3 on first use. > Good catch; I will add these to the -05 draft. --Paul Hoffman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
