I like this idea also. Warren may have some ideas but could also be something to do in one of the area WGs.
Grinding paperwork is a necessary evil. tim On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 2:05 PM Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
