Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-bootstrapping-01.txt

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Tue, 19 July 2022 14:33 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 204E5C188722 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2022 07:33:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 tUPjDxwQy9cH for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2022 07:33:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa4.dc.icann.org (ppa4.dc.icann.org [192.0.46.77]) (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 4FEC5C18871F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jul 2022 07:33:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.5]) by ppa4.dc.icann.org (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTPS id 26JEX6R3019555 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 19 Jul 2022 14:33:07 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 15.2.986.26; Tue, 19 Jul 2022 07:33:05 -0700
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 15.02.0986.026; Tue, 19 Jul 2022 07:33:05 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Peter Thomassen <peter@desec.io>
CC: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-bootstrapping-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHYm3x1tKOARQnIx0ahONJO446TcA==
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2022 14:33:05 +0000
Message-ID: <1A24399B-4328-46B5-8D27-40C83136018B@icann.org>
References: <165546037411.59869.5581408796512743719@ietfa.amsl.com> <f7cd3162-166a-e919-b019-42daae1e05b0@desec.io> <43a19513-6053-c028-8385-96232315d3c7@nic.cz> <627a6aca-6d1d-3968-f095-c25802735522@desec.io> <9311d3d0-4454-7d12-c23b-cb30a491fbd2@desec.io> <c5948484-9108-a8d2-b9e6-71adbc1a83ba@desec.io>
In-Reply-To: <c5948484-9108-a8d2-b9e6-71adbc1a83ba@desec.io>
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=_15CB3761-DFB1-4EDC-B5FA-FCC5CF59FAC7"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.883,Hydra:6.0.517,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2022-07-19_02,2022-07-19_01,2022-06-22_01
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/CDIUGxpYYsWtT3araRwnRXSMV9Y>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-bootstrapping-01.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 19 Jul 2022 14:33:22 -0000

Sorry I missed this earlier. RFC Y can update RFC X in general, or in one or more particular sections. RFC Y cannot "obsolete one section" of RFC X. RFC Y can completely obsolete RFC X if it restates everything.

See https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-kuehlewind-update-tag-04.txt for a bit of history on "updates" and its lack of stated definition.

--Paul Hoffman