IETF Logo Mail Archive

[DNSOP] Is DNSSEC a Best Current Practice?

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Thu, 10 March 2022 18:54 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 205103A1B51 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 10:54:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wm7xdasNXE2Y for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 10:54:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppa5.dc.icann.org (ppa5.dc.icann.org [192.0.46.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C8503A1B3C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 10:54:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.5]) by ppa5.dc.icann.org (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with ESMTPS id 22AIs7SR022807 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 18:54:08 GMT
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.986.22; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 10:54:07 -0800
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) with mapi id 15.02.0986.022; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 10:54:07 -0800
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Is DNSSEC a Best Current Practice?
Thread-Index: AQHYNLA4SLDIDdOz6kmuaOYY4jw3jA==
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 18:54:07 +0000
Message-ID: <88A0AA7A-01B8-4C7E-9A9A-1FB29C9FB18B@icann.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
x-source-routing-agent: Processed
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C6F5B6F2-D0B9-4731-AA83-0A7942FF24A3"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.425, 18.0.816 definitions=2022-03-10_08:2022-03-09, 2022-03-10 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/1u2q1Jkw-4TUQFgimihC6v1dqGY>
Subject: [DNSOP] Is DNSSEC a Best Current Practice?
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 18:54:17 -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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email