Ketan Talaulikar has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-ecc-gost-04: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-ecc-gost/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to the authors and the WG for the work on this document. My comments are specifically related to the document status and not the sum and substance. 1) It seems odd (even wrong?) to update an RFC that has been marked historic. I would suggest to not do that please. 2) Instead this document could update RFC 9364 which is the BCP for DNSsec. It can do that by "inserting" an section related to obsoleted (and MUST NOT use) technologies into that BCP. Start off by putting the ones that are being obsoleted in this document in their and perhaps there may be more such that come up down the line (with future documents that keep that "obsoleted" section up to date?). It seemed to me like a better way to go about this? 3) The IANA marking part could be done in the parallelly progressing document draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis with a reference to this document. I am assuming that doing just this step is not sufficient as we want additional text/color about this obsolesce? Please do correct my understanding if I've misunderstood the game here ... for my own education :-) _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
