On Aug 23, 2013, at 1:03 PM, Paul Vixie <[email protected]> wrote: > > on the other hand i would not be glad to see NTA as an IETF RFC, FYI, BCP, or > other standards-like artifact.
The current draft proposed status is "Informational." That is, not standards-track and not BCP. See: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-livingood-negative-trust-anchors/ It has cautionary language in it regarding the limited applicability of NTAs and IME the authors are not opposed to strengthening that. "Should we document it as an RFC anyway?" is a reasonable question, and I tend to think so but (like others I know here) I can live with either outcome. Suzanne
_______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list [email protected] https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations dns-jobs mailing list https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-jobs
