Re: [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status-04.txt

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

Sam,

Thanks for your conversation in the hall.  More below.

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 04:13:17PM -0400, Samuel Weiler wrote:
> I think something needs to change.  Most likely, we just need to
> restate in the text (not just the table) the status of RSASHA1 and
> RSAMD5.

It appears that we now agree that the table covers everything, and
that the text in section 2.2 is just rationale for some algorithms'
state.  If I understand your concern, you'd prefer to see the table in
section 2.2 to be expressed instead as running text.

Note that, if we do this, we pass through the IESG changeover, so this
document will need to be processed by a new IESG (with the additional
snags that might imply).  

Given that the definitions in previous drafts were _also_ in the
table, I'm a little concerned that this is now being offered as a
substantive reason to override prior consensus.  Would it be
sufficient to extend the sentence in section 1 to make clearer that
the table is the official line here?  That is

OLD, sec 1 para 3:

   This document defines the current implementation status for all
   registered algorithms.

NEW, sec 1 para 3:

   This document defines the current implementation status for all
   registered algorithms; the definitions are found in the table in
   Section 2.3.

Will that do?  

Best,

A (as shepherd)

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]