I’m on travel right now and only really have access to an iPad. It’s difficult to edit.
That said, I think-03 and -09 mean different things and that either needs to be fixed or go through another approval pass. The simple version would be “zones should not publish records containing SHA1 related data (e.g.signatures, DS hashes, keys attached to SHA1 Signature methods. sha1 and its related signatures and ancillary data should be processed as if the client did not support those algorithms”, But that may not work well in a transition model. It’s also not what either-03 or -09 seemed to say. Are the authors stil sure they want to move forward, and that the language is clear on what they meant? Mike On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 12:55 Wes Hardaker <[email protected]> wrote: > "StJohns, Michael" <[email protected]> writes: > > > Referring only to the question of what was this at last call - -03 was > > WG and IESG reviewed. Doing a diff between this -09 and -03 seems to > > indicates as much text in the body was changed as was left intact. > > The IESG review caused a lot of text changes due to clarifications that > the IESG members wanted. Yes, much of the text did indeed change but > the authors believed the intent was unchanged at least. > > But yes it's in the RFC editors queue. We might be able to suggest some > late clarifications during AUTH48 if they're reasonably scoped to > something that would be acceptable during AUTH48, and I'm sure the ADs > can probably sign off on things. > > -- > Wes Hardaker > USC/ISI >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
