Document changes urn:uuid:f840ebfb-2877-5892-a9fd-455d280c0dfa 2026-08-18T14:18:20.036061+00:00 urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1220043 2026-08-17T17:08:32.284937+00:00 2026-08-17T17:08:32.284937+00:00 (System) Update from RFC Editor: added errata tag, added verified-errata tag sync_from_rfc_editor ietf dnsop Mohamed Boucadair published urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1219972 2026-08-17T14:08:09.112471+00:00 2026-08-17T14:08:09.112471+00:00 Mike Ounsworth # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents<br><br>## Document History<br><br>1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a<br> few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?<br><br>This document represents broad WG consensus.<br><br>2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where<br> the consensus was particularly rough?<br><br>None<br><br>3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If<br> so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the<br> responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this<br> questionnaire is publicly available.)<br><br>None<br><br>4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of<br> the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated<br> plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,<br> either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere<br> (where)?<br><br>The mechanism described in this draft is already allowed by the CA/Browser Forum Baseline Requirements, and several public Certificate Authorities have already implemented this draft. It is high time that it has an RFC number.<br><br>## Additional Reviews<br><br>5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other<br> IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit<br> from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which<br> reviews took place.<br><br>This document interacts with the CA/Browser Forum, who has reviewed and approved it as an allowed validation method.<br><br>6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,<br> such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.<br><br>None<br><br>7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module<br> been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and<br> formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is<br> the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module<br> comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified<br> in [RFC 8342][5]?<br><br>No YANG module<br><br>8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the<br> final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,<br> BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.<br><br>None<br><br>## Document Shepherd Checks<br><br>9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this<br> document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready<br> to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?<br><br>Yes<br><br>10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their<br> reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified<br> and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent<br> reviews?<br><br>No outstanding issues that I am aware of.<br><br>11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best<br> Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],<br> [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type<br> of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?<br><br>The document is currently tagged as Proposed Standard, although given that this is already widely deployed by public CAs, we might consider publishing it as Internet Standard. I would appreciate the AD’s opinion on this.<br><br>12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual<br> property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To<br> the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If<br> not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links<br> to publicly-available messages when applicable.<br><br>There are no IPR declarations on this draft and the authors have explicitly stated that they are unaware of any other IPR that needs to be declared.<br><br><br>13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be<br> listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page<br> is greater than five, please provide a justification.<br><br>Yes.<br><br>14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits<br> tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on<br> authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates<br> some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)<br><br>IDnits suggests referencing BCP14 instead of (or in addition to) RFC2119/RFC8174, as BCP14 encompasses both specifications.<br><br>IDnits complains that the current document version is approaching 90 days old. This is expected as this document is very stable and has been awaiting a long WGLC.<br><br><br>15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG<br> Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].<br><br>The references seem appropriate to me.<br><br>16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did<br> the community have sufficient access to review any such normative<br> references?<br><br>None – all RFCs or freely-available NIST documents.<br><br>17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP<br> 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,<br> list them.<br><br>None<br><br>18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be<br> submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?<br> If so, what is the plan for their completion?<br><br>None<br><br>19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If<br> so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs<br> listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the<br> introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document<br> where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.<br><br>None<br><br>20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,<br> especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.<br> Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are<br> associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm<br> that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm<br> that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,<br> allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).<br><br>IANA is requested to register dns-account-01 in the "ACME Validation Methods" registry.<br><br>21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for<br> future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?<br> Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.<br><br>None changed_document ietf acme Mike Ounsworth Deb Cooley active pub-req sub-pub urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1219971 2026-08-17T14:08:09.096956+00:00 2026-08-17T14:08:09.096956+00:00 Mike Ounsworth IETF WG state changed to <b>Submitted to IESG for Publication</b> from In WG Last Call changed_state ietf acme Mike Ounsworth Deb Cooley active pub-req sub-pub urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1219970 2026-08-17T14:08:09.031983+00:00 2026-08-17T14:08:09.031983+00:00 Mike Ounsworth IESG state changed to <b>Publication Requested</b> from I-D Exists changed_state ietf acme Mike Ounsworth Deb Cooley active pub-req sub-pub urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1219969 2026-08-17T14:08:09.018894+00:00 2026-08-17T14:08:09.018894+00:00 (System) Changed action holders to Deb Cooley (IESG state changed) changed_action_holders ietf acme Mike Ounsworth Deb Cooley active pub-req sub-pub urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1219968 2026-08-17T14:08:08.923897+00:00 2026-08-17T14:08:08.923897+00:00 Mike Ounsworth Responsible AD changed to Deb Cooley changed_document ietf acme Mike Ounsworth Deb Cooley active pub-req sub-pub urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1219967 2026-08-17T14:08:08.913525+00:00 2026-08-17T14:08:08.913525+00:00 Mike Ounsworth Document is now in IESG state <b>Publication Requested</b> started_iesg_process ietf acme Mike Ounsworth Deb Cooley active pub-req sub-pub urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1219966 2026-08-17T14:07:50.277652+00:00 2026-08-17T14:07:50.277652+00:00 Mike Ounsworth # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents<br><br>## Document History<br><br>1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a<br> few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?<br><br>This document represents broad WG consensus.<br><br>2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where<br> the consensus was particularly rough?<br><br>None<br><br>3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If<br> so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the<br> responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this<br> questionnaire is publicly available.)<br><br>None<br><br>4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of<br> the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated<br> plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,<br> either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere<br> (where)?<br><br>The mechanism described in this draft is already allowed by the CA/Browser Forum Baseline Requirements, and several public Certificate Authorities have already implemented this draft. It is high time that it has an RFC number.<br><br>## Additional Reviews<br><br>5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other<br> IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit<br> from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which<br> reviews took place.<br><br>This document interacts with the CA/Browser Forum, who has reviewed and approved it as an allowed validation method.<br><br>6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,<br> such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.<br><br>None<br><br>7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module<br> been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and<br> formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is<br> the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module<br> comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified<br> in [RFC 8342][5]?<br><br>No YANG module<br><br>8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the<br> final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,<br> BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.<br><br>None<br><br>## Document Shepherd Checks<br><br>9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this<br> document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready<br> to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?<br><br>Yes<br><br>10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their<br> reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified<br> and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent<br> reviews?<br><br>No outstanding issues that I am aware of.<br><br>11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best<br> Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],<br> [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type<br> of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?<br><br>The document is currently tagged as Proposed Standard, although given that this is already widely deployed by public CAs, we might consider publishing it as Internet Standard. I would appreciate the AD’s opinion on this.<br><br>12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual<br> property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To<br> the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If<br> not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links<br> to publicly-available messages when applicable.<br><br>There are no IPR declarations on this draft and the authors have explicitly stated that they are unaware of any other IPR that needs to be declared.<br><br><br>13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be<br> listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page<br> is greater than five, please provide a justification.<br><br>Yes.<br><br>14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits<br> tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on<br> authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates<br> some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)<br><br>IDnits suggests referencing BCP14 instead of (or in addition to) RFC2119/RFC8174, as BCP14 encompasses both specifications.<br><br>IDnits complains that the current document version is approaching 90 days old. This is expected as this document is very stable and has been awaiting a long WGLC.<br><br><br>15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG<br> Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].<br><br>The references seem appropriate to me.<br><br>16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did<br> the community have sufficient access to review any such normative<br> references?<br><br>None – all RFCs or freely-available NIST documents.<br><br>17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP<br> 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,<br> list them.<br><br>None<br><br>18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be<br> submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?<br> If so, what is the plan for their completion?<br><br>None<br><br>19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If<br> so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs<br> listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the<br> introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document<br> where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.<br><br>None<br><br>20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,<br> especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.<br> Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are<br> associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm<br> that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm<br> that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,<br> allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).<br><br>IANA is requested to register dns-account-01 in the "ACME Validation Methods" registry.<br><br>21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for<br> future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?<br> Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.<br><br>None changed_protocol_writeup ietf acme Mike Ounsworth Deb Cooley active pub-req sub-pub urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1218951 2026-08-14T19:00:15.965688+00:00 2026-08-14T19:00:15.965688+00:00 Paul Hoffman New version available: <b>draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc9364bis-01.txt</b> new_revision ietf dnsop active idexists wg-doc This document describes the DNS Security Extensions (commonly called "DNSSEC") that are specified in RFCs 4033, 4034, and 4035, as well as a handful of others. One purpose is to introduce all of the RFCs in one place so that the reader can understand the many aspects of DNSSEC. This document does not update any of those RFCs. A second purpose is to state that using DNSSEC for origin authentication of DNS data is the best current practice. A third purpose is to provide a single reference for other documents that want to refer to DNSSEC. This document obsoletes RFC 9364. This document is being tracked at (https://github.com/paulehoffman/ rfc9364bis). 01 urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1218950 2026-08-14T19:00:15.962063+00:00 2026-08-14T19:00:15.962063+00:00 Paul Hoffman New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Paul Hoffman) new_submission ietf dnsop active idexists wg-doc urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1218949 2026-08-14T19:00:15.867500+00:00 2026-08-14T19:00:15.867500+00:00 Paul Hoffman Uploaded new revision new_submission ietf dnsop active idexists wg-doc urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1218942 2026-08-14T18:24:20.540642+00:00 2026-08-14T18:24:20.540642+00:00 Ondřej Surý New version available: <b>draft-sury-dnsop-rrsig-refused-00.txt</b> new_revision none active idexists The Domain Name System (DNS) allows a query with QTYPE=RRSIG. Such a query has no useful answer. RRSIG resource records are meaningful only together with the resource records they cover, so a response can carry no more than an arbitrary subset of the signatures present at the query name. This document specifies that DNS responders refuse queries with QTYPE=RRSIG, and that DNS requestors do not send them. It supplies the guidance that [RFC8482] left unspecified. 00 urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1218941 2026-08-14T18:24:20.537202+00:00 2026-08-14T18:24:20.537202+00:00 Ondřej Surý New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ondřej Surý) new_submission none active idexists urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1218940 2026-08-14T18:23:41.044140+00:00 2026-08-14T18:23:41.044140+00:00 Ondřej Surý Uploaded new revision new_submission none active idexists urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1218909 2026-08-14T15:48:05.556482+00:00 2026-08-14T15:48:05.556482+00:00 Andrew Kaizer New version available: <b>draft-kaizer-dnsop-ml-dsa-mtl-dnssec-01.txt</b> new_revision none active idexists This document describes how to apply the Module-Lattice-Based Digital Signature Algorithm (ML-DSA) and Merkle Tree Ladders (MTL) as a conservative post-quantum cryptographic algorithm for DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC). This combination is referred to as the ML-DSA- MTL Signature scheme. This document describes how to specify ML-DSA- MTL keys and signatures in DNSSEC, specifically for ML-DSA-44 with SHAKE-128. 01 urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1218908 2026-08-14T15:48:05.553023+00:00 2026-08-14T15:48:05.553023+00:00 Andrew Kaizer New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Andrew Kaizer) new_submission none active idexists urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1218907 2026-08-14T15:48:05.457255+00:00 2026-08-14T15:48:05.457255+00:00 Andrew Kaizer Uploaded new revision new_submission none active idexists urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1218743 2026-08-13T20:12:14.358698+00:00 2026-08-13T20:12:14.358698+00:00 (System) RPC status changed to Awaiting First editor from ref_checker changed_rpc_assignments ietf dnsop Benno Overeinder Éric Vyncke active rfcedack reviewers-ok changed rfcqueue in_progress sub-pub urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1218558 2026-08-13T13:45:43.829995+00:00 2026-08-13T13:45:43.829995+00:00 Benno Overeinder IETF WG state changed to <b>Call For Adoption By WG Issued</b> changed_state ietf dnsop active idexists c-adopt urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1218557 2026-08-13T13:45:43.800144+00:00 2026-08-13T13:45:43.800144+00:00 Benno Overeinder Changed group to <b>Domain Name System Operations (DNSOP)</b> changed_group ietf dnsop active idexists c-adopt urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1218556 2026-08-13T13:45:43.790740+00:00 2026-08-13T13:45:43.790740+00:00 Benno Overeinder Changed stream to <b>IETF</b> changed_stream ietf dnsop active idexists c-adopt urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1218394 2026-08-12T20:09:04.950136+00:00 2026-08-12T20:09:04.950136+00:00 Andrea Ferro Changed document external resources from: None to:<br><br>github_repo https://github.com/ApertoID/apertoid (Reference implementation) changed_document none active idexists urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1218393 2026-08-12T20:09:03.965322+00:00 2026-08-12T20:09:03.965322+00:00 Andrea Ferro New version available: <b>draft-ferro-dnsop-apertoid-02.txt</b> new_revision none active idexists This document defines ApertoID, a DNS-based protocol that enables domain owners to declare authorized AI agents acting on their behalf, publish cryptographic keys for agent identity verification, and specify enforcement policies for unauthorized agents. ApertoID uses existing DNS TXT records under the "_apertoid" underscore-scoped domain name to provide a decentralized, standards-based mechanism for AI agent identity declaration and verification. ApertoID defines two record types: a Policy Record analogous to DMARC that specifies domain-level enforcement behavior, and Agent Declaration Records analogous to DKIM key records that bind agent endpoints to Ed25519 public keys with mandatory expiration. A companion document [APERTOID-SIG] defines the HTTP request signing mechanism that enables agents to cryptographically prove their identity on each request. 02 urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1218392 2026-08-12T20:09:03.961595+00:00 2026-08-12T20:09:03.961595+00:00 Andrea Ferro New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Andrea Ferro) new_submission none active idexists urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1218391 2026-08-12T20:09:03.865751+00:00 2026-08-12T20:09:03.865751+00:00 Andrea Ferro Uploaded new revision new_submission none active idexists urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1218136 2026-08-11T19:53:58.537762+00:00 2026-08-11T19:53:58.537762+00:00 (System) Added rfc10001 to bcp91 sync_from_rfc_editor ietf dnsop Mohamed Boucadair published urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1218134 2026-08-11T19:53:55.855466+00:00 2026-08-11T19:53:55.855466+00:00 (System) RFC published published_rfc ietf dnsop Mohamed Boucadair published urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1217935 2026-08-10T21:30:20.325347+00:00 2026-08-10T21:30:20.325347+00:00 (System) RPC status changed to ref_checker from formatting changed_rpc_assignments ietf dnsop Benno Overeinder Éric Vyncke active rfcedack reviewers-ok changed rfcqueue in_progress sub-pub urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1217850 2026-08-10T12:57:47.347422+00:00 2026-08-10T12:57:47.347422+00:00 Lou Berger Request for Early review by IOTDIR Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Lou Berger. Sent review to list. closed_review_assignment ietf iotops active idexists wg-lc urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1217838 2026-08-10T11:12:48.536735+00:00 2026-08-10T11:12:48.536735+00:00 Yuming Feng New version available: <b>draft-feng-dnsop-authdns-operator-change-00.txt</b> new_revision none active idexists A registered domain name can change its authoritative DNS operator while the registrant also migrates service endpoints, such as web, API, CDN, mail, or cloud-hosted services. In this situation, service RRsets such as A, AAAA, CNAME, MX, SRV, SVCB, and HTTPS RRsets can change at the same time as the parent-side delegation changes. The parent-side delegation change is not observed by all recursive resolvers at the same instant. During the transition, some resolvers can continue to query the losing DNS operator while others query the gaining DNS operator. If the losing operator continues to serve stale service RRsets, or if it stops serving the zone too early, users can receive different answers depending on resolver cache state and can experience intermittent service failure. This document provides operational guidance for authoritative DNS operator changes with service endpoint migration for registered domain names. It recommends a registrant-authorized change plan, a consistency profile for in-scope service RRsets, synchronized provisioning or a common source of truth, a hold period during which the losing DNS operator continues to serve target or otherwise equivalent data, and verification points that directly compare the losing and gaining authoritative servers and classify observed states as planned, service-risk, or unexpected-delegation conditions. 00 urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1217837 2026-08-10T11:12:48.534178+00:00 2026-08-10T11:12:48.534178+00:00 Yuming Feng New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yuming Feng) new_submission none active idexists urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1217836 2026-08-10T08:36:25.750266+00:00 2026-08-10T08:36:25.750266+00:00 Yuming Feng Uploaded new revision new_submission none active idexists urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1217820 2026-08-10T07:36:46.307232+00:00 2026-08-10T07:36:46.307232+00:00 Martin Pels New version available: <b>draft-pels-dnsop-axfr-notify-01.txt</b> new_revision none active idexists This document defines a new AXFR message type for DNS NOTIFY messages, together with an accompanying subtype for the ZONEVERSION EDNS(0) option. The message instructs a secondary server to perform an AXFR zone transfer of a zone. 01 urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1217819 2026-08-10T07:36:46.305078+00:00 2026-08-10T07:36:46.305078+00:00 (System) New version approved new_submission none active idexists urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1217818 2026-08-10T07:36:02.068328+00:00 2026-08-10T07:36:02.068328+00:00 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Florian Obser <fobser@ripe.net>, Martin Pels <mpels@ripe.net> new_submission none active idexists urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1217817 2026-08-10T07:36:01.658479+00:00 2026-08-10T07:36:01.658479+00:00 Martin Pels Uploaded new revision new_submission none active idexists urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1217812 2026-08-10T07:13:56.201907+00:00 2026-08-10T07:13:56.201907+00:00 Martin Pels New version available: <b>draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-keyrestore-02.txt</b> new_revision ietf dnsop active idexists wg-doc This document describes the issues surrounding the handling of DNSSEC private keys in a DNSSEC signer. It presents operational guidance in case a DNSSEC private key becomes inoperable. Discussion Venues This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC. Discussion of this document takes place on the Domain Name System Operations Working Group mailing list (dnsop@ietf.org), which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/. Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/ietf-wg-dnsop/draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-keyrestore. 02 urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1217811 2026-08-10T07:13:56.198948+00:00 2026-08-10T07:13:56.198948+00:00 (System) New version approved new_submission ietf dnsop active idexists wg-doc urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1217809 2026-08-10T07:12:18.908179+00:00 2026-08-10T07:12:18.908179+00:00 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Florian Obser <fobser@ripe.net>, Martin Pels <mpels@ripe.net> new_submission ietf dnsop active idexists wg-doc urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1217808 2026-08-10T07:12:18.597399+00:00 2026-08-10T07:12:18.597399+00:00 Martin Pels Uploaded new revision new_submission ietf dnsop active idexists wg-doc urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1217746 2026-08-09T17:16:54.587169+00:00 2026-08-09T17:16:54.587169+00:00 Andrea Ferro New version available: <b>draft-ferro-dnsop-apertoid-01.txt</b> new_revision none active idexists This document defines ApertoID, a DNS-based protocol that enables domain owners to declare authorized AI agents acting on their behalf, publish cryptographic keys for agent identity verification, and specify enforcement policies for unauthorized agents. ApertoID uses existing DNS TXT records under the "_apertoid" underscore-scoped domain name to provide a decentralized, standards-based mechanism for AI agent identity declaration and verification. ApertoID defines two record types: a Policy Record analogous to DMARC that specifies domain-level enforcement behavior, and Agent Declaration Records analogous to DKIM key records that bind agent endpoints to Ed25519 public keys with mandatory expiration. A companion document [APERTOID-SIG] defines the HTTP request signing mechanism that enables agents to cryptographically prove their identity on each request. 02 urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1217745 2026-08-09T17:16:54.584587+00:00 2026-08-09T17:16:54.584587+00:00 Andrea Ferro New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Andrea Ferro) new_submission none active idexists urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1217744 2026-08-09T17:16:54.535973+00:00 2026-08-09T17:16:54.535973+00:00 Andrea Ferro Uploaded new revision new_submission none active idexists urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1217248 2026-08-06T13:26:56.951953+00:00 2026-08-06T13:26:56.951953+00:00 Joe Abley New version available: <b>draft-jabley-dnsop-ordered-answer-section-01.txt</b> new_revision none active idexists The existing Domain Name System (DNS) specifications lack some clarity in their description of the process by which individual sections of a DNS message are constructed. This document updates RFC 1034 and RFC 1035 to provide a clearer specification, consistent with deployed implementations. 01 urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1217247 2026-08-06T13:26:56.949871+00:00 2026-08-06T13:26:56.949871+00:00 (System) New version approved new_submission none active idexists urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1217245 2026-08-06T13:16:26.298249+00:00 2026-08-06T13:16:26.298249+00:00 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Joe Abley <jabley@cloudflare.com>, Sebastiaan Neuteboom <sebastiaan@cloudflare.com> new_submission none active idexists urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1217244 2026-08-06T13:16:25.921369+00:00 2026-08-06T13:16:25.921369+00:00 Joe Abley Uploaded new revision new_submission none active idexists urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1217236 2026-08-06T12:39:52.235109+00:00 2026-08-06T12:39:52.235109+00:00 Joe Abley New version available: <b>draft-jabley-dnsop-local-signing-algorithm-policy-00.txt</b> new_revision none active idexists Security-aware resolvers validate signatures, where available, in order to protect their clients from inauthentic data. DNSSEC treats all algorithms as equal when it comes to validation, such that a single valid signature is considered sufficient proof of authenticity, and that data is only to be judged to be inauthentic if all available signatures are found to be invalid. However, a resolver might have a different local policy, e.g. in its handling of quantum-safe signatures. This document discusses such local policy and describes a means to indicate to a client that specific local policy has been applied to response validation. 00 urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1217235 2026-08-06T12:39:52.233173+00:00 2026-08-06T12:39:52.233173+00:00 (System) New version approved new_submission none active idexists urn:datatracker-ietf-org:event:1217234 2026-08-06T12:39:34.011545+00:00 2026-08-06T12:39:34.011545+00:00 Joe Abley Request for posting confirmation emailed to submitter and authors: Joe Abley <jabley@cloudflare.com>, Joe Abley <jabley@strandkip.nl> new_submission none active idexists