On Aug 3, 2025, at 12:29, Michael StJohns <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 8/3/2025 14:18, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> Please note that this draft is already in the RFC Editor's queue, after >> having gone through WG Last Call, IETF Last Call, and IESG review. >> >> Making changes after it has been approved would likely bring the document >> back to (at least) the WG for review, which seems like a bad idea. If there >> are no technical errors, leaving the document as-is will get it published >> and implemented sooner. > > The thing is currently in Version Changed - Review Needed state.
Man, I hate to disagree so strongly with an old-timer, but look at the bottom of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-sha1/: it really and truly is in the RFC Editor's queue. ("Version Changed - Review Needed" is an IANA status...) > It would be useful to add a pointer to where "insecure" is defined as the > generic meaning of "insecure" and the DNSSEC meaning are not identical. As PaulW said, "insecure" is defined in BCP 237. Or, if you want to see two similar but different definitions, see Section 11 of BCP 219. Both are products of this WG. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
