IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: DNSSEC as BCP: draft-hoffman-dnssec

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Fri, 25 March 2022 10:36 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 D027F3A0CB3; Fri, 25 Mar 2022 03:36:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 nh-rcCId-mh8; Fri, 25 Mar 2022 03:36:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.85]) (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 8D5AE3A08BE; Fri, 25 Mar 2022 03:36:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4KPz6X0LDyz5T4; Fri, 25 Mar 2022 11:36:52 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1648204612; bh=z7jTFOmuXQ3PMH/4sBDhtQhntOwo2wqbwj0b5Ipclso=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:Cc:In-Reply-To:To; b=Td7QfNq02mGd3GLxNPDGjvhpEgO82SKN7/oe3WE/enYd0j15slEaBT++DnhWk7m5R +nZeXqz7+z1aV15t0MVhnXkGUcX5Edk7d6L5NnBcApzOvkSclmjao8MIifet4nO1CS 2q1U9b30ovGLl1UhI9gTnqIZ261OFzXA8gv0K/BE=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id muqGz4MGaoBe; Fri, 25 Mar 2022 11:36:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 25 Mar 2022 11:36:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (80-110-8-195.static.upcbusiness.at [80.110.8.195]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BD2612D0F05; Fri, 25 Mar 2022 06:36:49 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2022 11:36:46 +0100
Message-Id: <D38F869A-CE35-4D46-BDC8-DC4F6FA391BF@nohats.ca>
References: <CADyWQ+F88aupZ6krjmVY54OuqUaUq71myGpszyu6gnS240vWhg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, dnsop-chairs <dnsop-chairs@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CADyWQ+F88aupZ6krjmVY54OuqUaUq71myGpszyu6gnS240vWhg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (19E241)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/MyEKXzguhYTuqwLPGWayTNguu5A>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: DNSSEC as BCP: draft-hoffman-dnssec
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, 25 Mar 2022 10:37:00 -0000

On Mar 25, 2022, at 00:08, Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> If you attended the most recent DNSOP session, you've heard Warren speak about creating a BCP for DNSSEC, including  all of the DNSSEC related RFCs, in order to make life easier for implementers and DNS operators.

Please do. As an author and reviewer, I have ran into issues and then inconsistencies on how to normatively reference DNSSEC.

Paul

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status