Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis-09: 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-rfc8624-bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you to Gyan Mishra for the GENART review. I support the DISCUSS position of Mohamed Boucadair. ** Section 1 (and similar text in the abstract) To make the current status of the algorithms more easily accessible and understandable, and to make future changes to these recommendations easier to publish, this document moves the canonical status of the algorithms from [RFC8624] to the IANA DNSSEC algorithm registries. -- How is RFC8624 updated and what text says it is canonical? -- The document appears to take a hybrid approach to pull values from RFC8624 or the registry. For https://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types/ds-rr-types.xhtml, it uses RFC8624 as the basis to produce the new registry. RFC8624 calls value 0 NULL (CDS Only) but the current registry uses a value of “Reserved.” For https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers/dns-sec-alg-numbers.xhtml, it uses the in place registry to provide updates, not RFC8624. For example, RFC8624 makes no reference to SM3 but it is in the registry. ** Section 2. What is the set of RFC2119 key words that are permitted? The text already mentioned MUST, MUST NOT, RECOMMENDED, NOT RECOMMENDED and MAY. -- SHOULD and SHOULD NOT were explained as equivalent to RECOMMENDED. Does that mean that it shouldn’t be used? -- Can SHALL/SHALL NOT be used? -- Can OPTIONAL be used? ** Section 2. The text never explicitly explains the semantics of the four new columns. It has to be inferred from the name. ** Section 3. What is the relationship between these new columns and the “Zone Signing” and “Trans. Sec.” columns? _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
