Sounds like a good plan to me.
-Bill
> On Mar 10, 2022, at 7:55 PM, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> 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
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
