Subject: [DNSOP] I'm an idiot -- draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2019 11:05:00 -0400

Hi there all,

To obsolete DLV I was using the Option 2 of the "Designating RFCs as
Historic" process - this involves copying the text of the supporting
draft into the "status-change" document, and then making the
supporting draft as Dead.

Unfortunately I missed something obvious --
draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv also updates RFC 6698 and RFC 6840; by
copying the text into the status-change document, there is nothing
left to actually *do* the updates. So, with apologies to the authors /
WG, can you please resubmit draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv with:
1: RFC 6698, RFC 6840 listed in the "Updates" header
2: Update the abstract to say "This document updates RFC 6698 by
excluding the DLV resource record from certificates, and updates RFC
6840 by excluding the DLV registries from the  trust anchor
selection." (or something similar)
3: Marking this as Std Track (we are updating Std Track RFCs)

I will then redo the IETF LC (because we moved from Informational to Std Track).

Sorry for not catching this (and thanks to Alvaro for noticing it),
W

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf

---

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2019 11:08:35 -0400

Thanks Warren.

What I've been told is "the IETF doesn't mark enough documents Historic to
standardize the workflow".

Poor Camel

Tim

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 11:06 AM Warren Kumari <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>