I support adopting this draft. On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 11:22 AM Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote: > > As document author, this seems like a good time for updating RFC 9364 to add > important DNSSEC RFCs from the past few years. The IETF still doesn't have a > good way, other than an RFC, to tell people "here is a definitive description > of what the $foo protocol means" if the protocol is spread over more than two > or three RFCs. This WG cares a lot about DNSSEC and good DNSSEC operations, > so it feels like we should help others with understanding that.
(I'm not saying it's a "good way" but I typically find RFCs for a protocol, if I don't already know, by looking at the IANA registries for that protocol such as https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers/dns-sec-alg-numbers.xhtml) Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA [email protected] > FWIW, I have started to see more non-IETF documents refer to RFC 9364 > (instead of 4033-4035) when they first mention "DNSSEC", so we do know it is > useful. This call for adoption is about whether we want to keep this useful > thing somewhat up-to-date. > > --Paul Hoffman > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
