Hi Peter and Med, Thanks for passing this along; we have noted the possible delay on the AUTH48 status page (see below).
It didn’t sound like Med’s suggested update had consensus between the two of you. We will hold off on any updates to that text until we hear further. No updates have been made to the past versions of the files, just including links here for convenience. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9975.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9975.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9975.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9975.xml The diff files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9975-diff.html (comprehensive) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9975-rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9975-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes only) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9975-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9975-lastdiff.html (last version to this) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9975-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9975 Thank you. Megan Ferguson RFC Production Center > Hi Megan, > > This document (non-normatively) references draft-ietf-dnsop-ds-automation. > > Please hold off publishing RFC 9975 for a few days as a new revision of that > draft is expected, and it would be nice if the informative reference in RFC > 9975 pointed to the most stable version. > > I'll let you know when the reference is stable (probably Friday). > > Thanks! > > Best, > Peter > On May 19, 2026, at 3:23 AM, Peter Thomassen | SSE <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Med, > > On 5/19/26 09:31, [email protected] wrote: >> When reviewing the full diff, I noticed this part that I think can be >> simplified a bit: >> CURRENT: >> For ingesting CSYNC records, Section 3.1 of [RFC7477] advocates that >> Parental Agents limit queries to a single authoritative nameserver >> (as done in normal resolution). [RFC7344] (on CDS/CDNSKEY) has a >> corresponding section (Section 6.1 of [RFC7344]) that contains no >> provision for how specifically queries for these records should be >> done. >> For example, >> NEW: >> For ingesting CSYNC records, Section 3.1 of [RFC7477] advocates that >> Parental Agents limit queries to a single authoritative nameserver >> (as done in normal resolution). However, Section 6.1 of [RFC7344] >> contains no >> provision for how specifically queries for these records should be >> done. > > In fact, the "complication" was proposed by the RFC Editor, as 7477 is on > CSYNC and 7344 on CDS/CDNSKEY, but only the former is pointed out. Without > context on CDS/CDNSKEY, this is incomprehensible. > > I agree that the current text is not particularly smooth, but I can live with > it. I'm also fine when this is resolved some other way (but I don't have a > good proposal). > > Thanks, > Peter -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
