IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-iana-cons-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Wed, 29 September 2021 15:49 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 BB5E53A1B37; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 08:49:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 5afvF59c5Eb8; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 08:49:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa2.lax.icann.org (ppa2.lax.icann.org [192.0.33.77]) (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 BCB383A1B42; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 08:49:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.5]) by ppa2.lax.icann.org (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with ESMTPS id 18TFn4Bx026054 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 29 Sep 2021 15:49:04 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 15.2.922.13; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 08:49:03 -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 15.02.0922.013; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 08:49:03 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
CC: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-iana-cons-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHXtJeGVXjj3c5YVkKRJ14eKwfv0qu7nzeA
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 15:49:03 +0000
Message-ID: <AE26C926-F618-4C16-88E6-5DD4AED2B178@icann.org>
References: <163285408723.29955.12780997671770548944@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <163285408723.29955.12780997671770548944@ietfa.amsl.com>
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=_443F0C37-393D-4A10-83F2-A52157FFB405"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.790 definitions=2021-09-29_06:2021-09-29, 2021-09-29 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/RdiXM7fWX4QzCGxJRkgAfdnEzaY>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-iana-cons-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 15:49:12 -0000

On Sep 28, 2021, at 11:34 AM, Martin Duke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Holding this point because we should discuss it; this might be a problem to be
> solved by a different document, in which case I'll lift it.
> 
> Section 8 of RFC8126 says that bis documents should update the reference in
> IANA registries to replace obsolete documents with not-obsolete ones. It
> appears that 3658 didn't have a "bis" document but clearly was replaced by
> three others.

It was obsoleted by RFCs 4033, 4034, and 4035. Those are not "bis" documents, they are full replacements.

> I don't really understand how they fully obsolete 3658 if there
> are still registries hanging out there.

Please define "hanging out there". :-) The registry of interest is at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types/ds-rr-types.xhtml#ds-rr-types-1>. The "Reference" section in that registry lists "[RFC3658][RFC4034][RFC4035]".

Is your objection that the registry still lists RFC 3658? If so, this seems an IANA issue, not an issue with this draft.

> Regardless, perhaps this draft is an
> opportunity to update the reference to these registries?

The draft refers to the correct registry.

> Or is 3658 not
> "really" obsolete?

It is really obsolete, and has been for well over a decade.

Is this explanation complete enough for you to lift your DISCUSS ballot?

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Nit: Please expand DS and NSEC3 on first use.
> 

Good catch; I will add these to the -05 draft.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email