Hi, The RR TYPE experts do want us to leave those obsoleted references in the registry). We’re asking them to clarify whether this should be the case for all future entries in that registry as well.
Best regards, Amanda From: iesg <iesg-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Donald Eastlake <d3e...@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 9:35 AM To: Martin Duke <martin.h.d...@gmail.com> Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, The IESG <i...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-iana-cons-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) It would seem that registry references are not always fully updated. Another example I stumbled over recently is that RFC 3404 obsoletes RFCs 2915 and 2168 but they were both left in as references in the IANA RR registry entry for NAPTR when RFC 3404 was added as a reference... Last I heard, IANA was checking with the Experts for that registry and IANA considered it up to those experts whether to leave in the obsoleted references or not. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e...@gmail.com<mailto:d3e...@gmail.com> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 12:16 PM Martin Duke <martin.h.d...@gmail.com<mailto:martin.h.d...@gmail.com>> wrote: Thank you for clarifying. If 4033-4035 fully replaced 3658, then one of them should have picked up the specification of the registry that 3658 established. Maybe this is something that could be addressed in this document, or perhaps somewhere else; I'd like to have the discussion. On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 8:49 AM Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org<mailto:paul.hoff...@icann.org>> wrote: On Sep 28, 2021, at 11:34 AM, Martin Duke via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org<mailto: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 _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org<mailto:DNSOP@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop [ietf.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop__;!!PtGJab4!oWGAugG-vcOFMh2gv2_p7Y_MJ6rojyzOPJc4bZWxOEv1jyp07kFZtfd6MuuoaZQIV-xL1EzV$>
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
