On Oct 19, 2022, at 11:01 PM, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I'm not sure how I feel about this being a BCP. If it's more of an index to > other DNSSEC standards documents, shouldn't it be Informational? If the core > documents are Standards Track, doesn't that mean DNSSEC is a (proposed) > standard, not a BCP? Can it be both? If we ever promote the core documents > to > full standard, what becomes of this document's status? > > Maybe there are some precedents here I don't know about. I'm happy to be > guided if there's history I'm missing. > The WG tried to explain this in Section 1.1, "DNSSEC as a Best Current Practice". The first paragraph says: The DNSSEC set of protocols is the best current practice for adding origin authentication of data in the DNS. To date, no standards- track RFCs offer any other method for such origin authentication of data in the DNS. The second paragraph deals with the issue that this is a best current practice that has not been adopted as widely as hoped, but is still well-deployed. --Paul Hoffman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
