Ketan Talaulikar via Datatracker <[email protected]> writes: Thanks for the comments Ketan. Some things inline:
> 1) It seems odd (even wrong?) to update an RFC that has been marked historic. > I > would suggest to not do that please. Well, now I'm stuck as others have wanted that done. Wheeee. What you're saying makes sense, so I think this might be a good topic for the telechat to see what the entire IESG thinks is right here? > 2) Instead this document could update RFC 9364 which is the BCP for > DNSsec. We've talked about whether or not the BCP should be updated as well, but the general consensus was not to touch that as it should have it's own update path that was agreed to by the WG. > 3) The IANA marking part could be done in the parallelly progressing document > draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis with a reference to this document. I am assuming > that doing just this step is not sufficient as we want additional text/color > about this obsolesce? I actually just did this at the request of IANA as well, so thank you. For this one everyone agrees :-) -- Wes Hardaker My Games: https://frostedaxe.com/ My Pictures: http://photos.capturedonearth.com/ _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
