Re: [DNSOP] More input for draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-bcp?

Martin Hoffmann <martin@nlnetlabs.nl> Tue, 26 April 2022 14:03 UTC

Return-Path: <martin@nlnetlabs.nl>
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 C322DC07B6E2 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 07:03:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nlnetlabs.nl
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c-3xtu4K0K6s for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 07:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound.soverin.net (outbound.soverin.net [185.233.34.146]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B829C070629 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 07:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.soverin.net (c04smtp-lb01.int.sover.in [10.10.4.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by outbound.soverin.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Knk9z1xDGzNw for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 14:03:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.soverin.net (smtp.soverin.net [10.10.4.100]) by soverin.net
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nlnetlabs.nl; s=soverin; t=1650981799; bh=1K/LQQ84fd6uHagYGa1sIXjyQ12sHVhEQ3yVNnGJ3C8=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ImzYnzFLA3t2SjZCWh3Te7ndrNIsLwFTrMKakh1jxKqvtSMrl/Xz269TP6oEgWGT6 xKHABJO6A0R5NnmMoSvrdUexuZgcezGjqTcMZGju0CEZWWcsER14i1r3U/ZZYVsnjg 4WnsQa1QbPU6StWsxGR1EjtkJAs9XeJqatI5EbziMykYGQJQjcpHIGbd00LlgNTLy6 N4O4nkMNbn4U19UtvVq8pL2tc7H6lmNVJpRPR3mZ50kqIHbCkptm3kg722H+/GMEvy BS25Gi4QiaLzeVSH4LhCXJitr0zm9T12iaS83sMiJB8pfIQBaC+ztsF7O7atqmb2TK L4ijmmsbQ69Dg==
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 16:03:17 +0200
From: Martin Hoffmann <martin@nlnetlabs.nl>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20220426160317.4f14f72e@glaurung.nlnetlabs.nl>
In-Reply-To: <02759DA4-45AF-4021-BBD1-B8733CD85CE1@icann.org>
References: <02759DA4-45AF-4021-BBD1-B8733CD85CE1@icann.org>
Organization: NLnet Labs
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/6emvnbRyYkriKzOQ-xc61-kl0zg>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] More input for draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-bcp?
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
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: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 14:03:37 -0000

Hi!

Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Greetings. I posted the -01 about ten days ago, and have not heard
> anything since then. The chairs indicated that they wanted this
> fast-tracked, so I'll nudge here for more input, either on the WG
> mailing list on in the repo
> (https://github.com/paulehoffman/draft-hoffman-dnssec). If nothing
> big comes up, I'll ask for WG Last Call.

The draft’s nature of listing all the relevant RFCs reminded me that
back in 2009 the SIP working group published a similar document and
called it ‘The Hitchhikers Guide to SIP.’

Maybe it would be a good idea to name this draft in a similar fashion?
Not because the joke is particularly ... fresh but because if it would
become a moniker across the entire IETF, it would be much easier to
identify an RFC that provides an overview of all the relevant documents
for a topic and thus a good starting point for research.

Cheers,
Martin