Paul-san, > In the big picture, I think it would be good for the DNS to be able > to refer to DNSSEC more easily. Thoughts?
I think it can be said for RFC 1034 and 1035, too. But it's much more difficult than DNSSEC. My friend Takashi Takizawa maintains this horrible figure. DNS RFCs - ttkzw's site <https://emaillab.jp/dns/dns-rfc/> -- Orange -- Yasuhiro 'Orange' Morishita <yasuh...@jprs.co.jp> From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> Subject: [DNSOP] Is DNSSEC a Best Current Practice? Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 18:54:07 +0000 > 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
