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

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> Mon, 11 March 2013 19:16 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ECB911E8121 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:16:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.84
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.84 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IXBr+3RlHKKs for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0052811E8165 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:16:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from crankycanuck.ca (dhcp-2430.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.36.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 061168A031 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:16:19 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:16:07 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
To: dnsext@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20130311191607.GF38303@crankycanuck.ca>
References: <20130311152035.4888.59295.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130311152035.4888.59295.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status-04.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:16:23 -0000

Dear colleagues,

This update from Scott is an attempt to solve the objections raised in
an IESG DISCUSS without violating the WG's consensus that this
document was about implementation and not deployment.  I think it
walks that line, and I am comfortable going ahead.

If, however, you object, you need to squawk in the next 24 hours.
Otherwise, our AD is going to sign off.  This is a tight deadline
because (1) as shepherd, I am convinced this actually solves the
problem and (2) the document hung fire long enough that we are up
against the change of the IESG.  Please be aware that, if the current
changes do not solve the problem, I have no idea how to proceed; we
will probably have to abandon this document in that case.

Thanks to Scott for incorporating these changes and for being so
patient.  

Best regards,

A

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 08:20:35AM -0700, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>  This draft is a work item of the DNS Extensions Working Group of the IETF.
> 
> 	Title           : Applicability Statement: DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm Implementation Status
> 	Author(s)       : Scott Rose
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status-04.txt
> 	Pages           : 7
> 	Date            : 2013-03-11
> 
> Abstract:
>    The DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) requires the use of
>    cryptographic algorithm suites for generating digital signatures over
>    DNS data.  There is currently an IANA registry for these algorithms
>    but there is no record of the recommended implementation status of
>    each algorithm.  This document provides an applicability statement on
>    algorithm implementation status for DNSSEC component software.  This
>    document lists each algorithm's status based on the current
>    reference.  In the case that an algorithm is specified without an
>    implementation status, this document assigns one.  This document
>    updates RFCs 2536, 2539, 3110, 4034, 4398, 5155, 5702, and 5933.
> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status
> 
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status-04
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status-04
> 
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> dnsext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@crankycanuck.ca