Re: [DNSOP] Is DNSSEC a Best Current Practice?

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 <paul@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.hoffman@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
>