Sounds good to me. Even better if we would clarify DNSSEC is not an optional part of DNS, but I don’t think you are volunteering for that discussion 😀
Sent using a virtual keyboard on a phone > On Mar 10, 2022, at 13:54, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> wrote: > > Greetings again. My motivation here is kinda trivial, but I've heard it is a > common complaint. When writing a about DNSSEC, I need to reference the RFC. > But it's three RFCs (4033, 4034, and 4035), and possibly another (6840). It > would be awfully nice to refer to "DNSSEC" with a single reference like "BCP > 250". > > To get there, we need to update the RFCs and say that we want an BCP. This is > mostly a paperwork exercise, but this WG isn't terribly good at getting those > done. Maybe we could create a short-lived WG for moving DNSSEC to BCP that > just the DNSSEC-y people need to pay attention to. If we do it, that WG would > not take up any new DNSSEC-related work, just spruce up the base RFCs. > > In the big picture, I think it would be good for the DNS to be able to refer > to DNSSEC more easily. Thoughts? > > --Paul Hoffman_______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
