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

[Peter Thomassen <[e-mail]>]

On 6/22/22 12:39, Peter Thomassen wrote:
> So I agree that strictly "replacing" Section 3 may be too much, but we should strongly discourage its use. Perhaps its enough to state that the draft "obsoletes" (or "deprecates"?) RFC 8078 Section 3?

I was thinking to write something like:

OLD:
   This document updates [@!RFC8078] and replaces its Section 3 with (#bootstrapping) of this document.

NEW:
   This document obsoletes Section 3 of [@!RFC8078] in favor of (#bootstrapping) of this document.


In doing so, I remember the Obsoletes: RFC header. Looking into it, it seems to apply to an RFC as a whole (not only to a Section, as is the case here).

I started considering what's the difference between obsoleting RFC 8078 Section 3, and the RFC as a whole. The differences would be:

- Besides Section 3 (which we want to obsolete), RFC 8078 has normative language in Section 4 (Disabling DNSSEC with Null CDS record), and in Section 5 (Security Considerations). I guess we don't want to obsolete Section 4. But if the whole RFC was obsoleted, the relevant aspects of Section 5 could be migrated to the new draft.

- RFC 8078 elevates RFC 7344 from Informational to Standards Track. Would that be "undone" by obsoleting RFC 8078? (I guess not?)

- Similarly, RFC 8078 registers the "Delete DS" algorithm. This continues to be needed. Would it collide with obsoleting the RFC?


I can imagine that having all bootstrapping-related stuff in one document (and obsoleting the former), that would make things easier to digest for readers. On the other hand, I don't know how the above situation would be best handled. Input from more experienced IETFers is appreciated.

Best,
Peter

-- 
https://desec.io/