Re: Last Call: Simple Secure Domain Name System (DNS) Dynamic Update to Proposed Standard

[Thomas Narten <[e-mail]>]

The IESG <[e-mail]> writes:

> The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions Working Group
> to consider Simple Secure Domain Name System (DNS) Dynamic Update
> <draft-ietf-dnsext-simple-secure-update-01.txt> as a Proposed Standard.
> This will replace/obsolete RFC2137, currently a Proposed Standard.

> The IESG will also consider Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC)
> Signing Authority <draft-ietf-dnsext-signing-auth-01.txt> as a Proposed
> Standard, updating RFC2535

Both of these IDs would appear to be significant replacements of their
corresponding RFCs. Also, when a new RFC replaces on old one, its
expected to include a "Changes relative to RFC XXX" section in them to
help implementors understand what has changed. That might not make
sense here, i.e., is this replacement vs. changing.

Question: should either of the two RFCs actually be reclassified as
Historic, as opposed to just being obsoleted? If there is little or no
deployment and the point is to not have anyone implement the old RFCs,
reclassifying them to historic might be the way to go.

Thomas


to unsubscribe send a message to [e-mail] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.