> There's no question that the IETF could get a working group together to specify a transparency log for DNSSEC... eventually. I'd happily start a pool to bet o

> There's no question that the IETF could get a working group together to specify a transparency log for DNSSEC... eventually. I'd happily start a pool to bet on how long it would take them to bikeshed it out. Don't tempt the IETF... The ADD group has been working on service bindings for DNS to signal the supported set of secure transports for a DNS server. The DNS Privacy Working Group is working on this topic. And now there is DANCE, attempting to apply DANE for network client authentication. And there’s DNSOP of course. One should never underestimate the potential for the IETF to solve the same problem thirty times in thirty different ways. Just think 'IPv6 Transition Mechanisms' to understand just how well the IETF can explore and standardize every possible option, to the inevitable confusion of all! https://blog.apnic.net/2021/11/18/dns-at-ietf-112/ https://blog.apnic.net/2021/11/18/dns-at-ietf-112/