IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> Thu, 10 March 2022 19:24 UTC

Return-Path: <woody@pch.net>
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 872AF3A0819 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 11:24:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.11
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.11 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_PASS=-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 (2048-bit key) header.d=pch.net
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 8crVif_wUgdu for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 11:24:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.pch.net (keriomail.pch.net [206.220.231.84]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CEC93A046E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2022 11:24:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=pch.net; s=mail; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:cc:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:references; bh=OfFcXE7EliDuY7CKYlmEBcqycCc0mgdB4MbnaZ74UNw=; b=YWBXUpotjBAPbDepLrDH130EEEL2pplx167rg9TkYSzjant7aY2/VJpnOQvRMGXAo9F9xGDxgGLxi E8DoyVH63yLhRN3UmnxKsktgKcQHsJ8BuSfUrpGWyHEmkWJoN6IUDSOSSWIWRdg182V4clVCTLNOBY UKlUIp+raNbwtgKgsw1UuGau5qF/NJcGkeIaUy32MOhlM9DmOAGfrdcx1xGOtmFucxMSWOY9jY47bs uho/GNTMa9tkZl21JZ4YimvrL8NhGgmUMuZ7e7ZKZcjzCaZvJhZ4e1b3OXkP5Oi4GcWROUYHIcBy8g nPtxKUSqT3lMHyumqiy9xU/TGYwR5Nw==
X-Footer: cGNoLm5ldA==
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([69.166.14.6]) by mail.pch.net (Kerio Connect 9.2.7 patch 3) with ESMTPS (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256 bits)); Thu, 10 Mar 2022 11:23:53 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
In-Reply-To: <88A0AA7A-01B8-4C7E-9A9A-1FB29C9FB18B@icann.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 20:23:46 +0100
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <59BEA37A-C111-43C0-85C8-465E6152BE0C@pch.net>
References: <88A0AA7A-01B8-4C7E-9A9A-1FB29C9FB18B@icann.org>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (19D52)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/zDMaof_OA_dmI1esE7qO1mSQYDI>
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: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 19:24:20 -0000

Sounds like a good plan to me. 
    
                -Bill


> On Mar 10, 2022, at 7:55 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> wrote:
> 
> Greetings again. My motivation here is kinda trivial, but I've heard it is a common complaint. When writing a about DNSSEC, I need to reference the RFC. But it's three RFCs (4033, 4034, and 4035), and possibly another (6840). It would be awfully nice to refer to "DNSSEC" with a single reference like "BCP 250".
> 
> To get there, we need to update the RFCs and say that we want an BCP. This is mostly a paperwork exercise, but this WG isn't terribly good at getting those done. Maybe we could create a short-lived WG for moving DNSSEC to BCP that just the DNSSEC-y people need to pay attention to. If we do it, that WG would not take up any new DNSSEC-related work, just spruce up the base RFCs.
> 
> In the big picture, I think it would be good for the DNS to be able to refer to DNSSEC more easily. Thoughts?
> 
> --Paul Hoffman_______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email