Subject: [DNSOP] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-iana-cons-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2021 07:19:44 -0700

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-iana-cons-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-iana-cons/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Nit: Please expand DS and NSEC3 on first use.

The original DISCUSS:
Section 8 of RFC8126 says that bis documents should update the reference in
IANA registries to replace obsolete documents with not-obsolete ones. It
appears that 3658 didn't have a "bis" document but clearly was replaced by
three others. I don't really understand how they fully obsolete 3658 if there
are still registries hanging out there. Regardless, perhaps this draft is an
opportunity to update the reference to these registries? Or is 3658 not
"really" obsolete?

At the telechat, the conclusion was that the document relationship is a little
messy, but it probably wasn't worth fixing, and if it were to be fixed Warren
would choose to do it a separate document. IANA had no objection to this course
of action.