IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Fri, 11 March 2022 12:49 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
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 002773A0DD8 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 04:49:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 s4qjq4wBhC6j for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 04:49:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9FC113A09F9 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 04:49:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 84816 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2022 12:45:23 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 11 Mar 2022 12:45:23 -0000
Message-ID: <65428b79-b67d-6dfb-854b-8129491b398b@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2022 21:49:02 +0900
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <88A0AA7A-01B8-4C7E-9A9A-1FB29C9FB18B@icann.org> <20220311.114445.338879450243418596.yasuhiro@jprs.co.jp> <CADyWQ+GWrjjSxb2cvLHL0Juvx95iaO__p_8--NqwwmMCTz61vw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
In-Reply-To: <CADyWQ+GWrjjSxb2cvLHL0Juvx95iaO__p_8--NqwwmMCTz61vw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/KsvLUkuds2h8uSudqRjJcj3xcm0>
Subject: Re: [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: Fri, 11 Mar 2022 12:49:14 -0000

Tim Wicinski wrote:

> I have been thinking the same thing this evening about 1034 and 1035.
> Thanks for bringing it up.
> 
> They do not need to have BCP status, but for several years now I have felt
> those two need to be republished with all
> the updated text from the many updates (28 for 1035, 18 for 1034) in new
> documents.  This does not include any other
> changes, and it feels like a thankless task.

Given that, here in this ML, I repeatedly correct wide spread
misunderstandings on the original rfcs 1034 and 1035, not
extensions to them, every several years, the task can be
performed properly only by PVM, the original author of the
rfcs, as an active editor, I'm afraid.

						Masataka Ohta

PS

It should be a lot more productive to totally revise DNS which
should be a thankful task.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email