[dnsext] draft-srose-dnssec-algo-imp-status-00 (was: Re: Follow up on draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes)

[Samuel Weiler <[e-mail]>]

I generally support the idea behind this draft (putting current 
recommendation state in an RFC), but I have some minor concerns about 
the specific content:

"The status of RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1 is set to RECOMMENDED TO 
IMPLEMENT.  This is due to the fact that RSA/SHA-1 is a MUST 
IMPLEMENT."

I don't follow the logic in the above.  Why does A follow from B?

"Adding a newly specified algorithm to the registry with a compliance 
status SHALL entail obsolescing this document and replacing the 
registry table (with the new algorithm entry)."

I suggest: "Adding...with an implementation status other than OPTIONAL 
SHALL....and publishing a new document with a new complete registry 
table."

Throughout this document, "implementation status", "compliance 
status", and "implementations compliance status" appear.  I don't 
understand the difference between the three.  If there is none, pick 
one and stick to it.

In security considerations: "This document replaces the Domain Name 
System (DNS) Security Algorithm Numbers registry."  I don't think you 
intended to write that in this document.

-- Sam