The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List_of_DNS_record_types#TLSA. (non-admin closure) John F. Lewis (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TLSA record

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a DNS record type defined by an IETF draft RFC (i.e. an RFC that has not been adopted yet). Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. BenTels (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confused: I am not sure it passes GNG, and as currently written could be deleted for lack of context. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a new DNS resource record. It would be nice if the submitter had populated the page with more text, but it is a new addition to DNS that is worth properly documenting. I would not suggest we delete it unless there is no interest to expand on the article entry. Perhaps the RFC authors might want to provide input? Paulej (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is not a new DNS record yet. That is why I nominated the article for deletion. While I agree with you that a DNS record described by a standard is notable, the standard behind this record has not been adopted yet. And might therefore still fail. Hence WP:TOOSOON. -- BenTels (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or Redirect as both WP:TOOSOON and not WP:NOTABLE. The content is basically duplicated in List of DNS record types. It is probable that the RFC will become accepted as standard internet protocol/policy, but even then I'm not sure this requires a separate article; a subsection under Transport Layer Security would be more appropriate. For now a redirect to List of DNS record types should be sufficient.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While the List of DNS record types does include this entry, several record types that have their own pages. Given the nature of TLSA, I can certainly appreciate this one having its own page. Items that need to be covered include use of TLSA with DNSSEC. A discussion on the background of certificates and why DNSSEC + TLSA might help mitigate issues from issuance of bogus certificates. The format of the record and perhaps details on how to properly generate the records would be useful. At a high level, it would be useful to explain how an entity (browser or other) might query a TLSA record for a given server and verify that the domain owner has, indeed, authorized the digital certificate found at said server. TLSA records make it possible to significantly change the way people use digital certificates. I would love to see an outline created and sections fleshed out. Paulej (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of DNS record types as WP:CRYSTAL. Since this isn't an accepted record yet, there's zero reason for it to have its own pagespace. If User:Paulej wants this userfied for improvement, I have no objection. BusterD (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.