<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Aug 23, 2013, at 1:03 PM, Paul Vixie <<a href="mailto:paul@redbarn.org">paul@redbarn.org</a>> wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
on the other hand i would not be glad to see NTA as an IETF RFC, FYI,
BCP, or other standards-like artifact.<br>
</div></blockquote><br></div><div>The current draft proposed status is "Informational."<div><br></div><div>That is, not standards-track and not BCP.</div><div><br></div><div>See: <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-livingood-negative-trust-anchors/">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-livingood-negative-trust-anchors/</a></div><div><br></div><div>It has cautionary language in it regarding the limited applicability of NTAs and IME the authors are not opposed to strengthening that.</div><div><br></div><div>"Should we document it as an RFC anyway?" is a reasonable question, and I tend to think so but (like others I know here) I can live with either outcome.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Suzanne</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></body></html>