[DNSOP] Re: [OPS-DIR]Re: Opsdir ietf last call partial review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis-09

[Nabeel Cocker <[e-mail]>]

Hello Wes,

Sorry forgot to ask when the updated draft will be uploaded?

thanks
Nabeel

On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 11:06 PM Nabeel Cocker <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello Wes,
>
> Your updates totally work!
>
> thanks for the updates!
>
> Regards,
> Nabeel
>
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 1:08 PM Wes Hardaker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Nabeel Cocker via Datatracker <[e-mail]> writes:
>>
>> Hi Nabeel,
>>
>> > Section 1.2, paragraph 3:
>> > ==========================
>> > "This will allow for deprecated algorithms to become used less and less
>> over
>> > time."
>> >
>> > Perhaps say it like "This ensures that the use of deprecated algorithms
>> > decreases over time."
>>
>> Done!
>>
>>
>> > Section 2:
>> > ===========
>> > The last paragraph states
>> >  The "Implement for" column values are transcribed from
>> >    [RFC8624].  The "Use for" columns are set to the same values as the
>> >    "implement for" ...
>> > "implement for" has a lower case "i".
>>
>> Good catch, thanks.
>>
>> > Section 2:
>> > ----------
>> > The last paragraph states:
>> >  The "Implement for" column values are transcribed from
>> >    [RFC8624].  The "Use for" columns are set to the same values as the
>> >    "implement for" values since the general interpretation to date
>> >    indicates they have been treated as values for both "implementation"
>> >    and "use".  We note that the values for "Implement for" and "Use for"
>> >    may diverge in the future.
>> >
>> > The above text indicates that the "Implement for" and "Use for" columns
>> should
>> > have identical values. However, when I look at Table 2, there are
>> differences
>> > between the values in the "Implement for" and the "Use for" for number
>> 5, 7, 8,
>> > 10 and 13, For example, in number 5 where Use for DNSSEC Validation is
>> > "RECOMMEND" but the Implement for DNSSEC Validation is "MUST"
>>
>> That's a good point and we don't discuss it in the document.  The WG
>> wished to not use MUST and MUST-NOT for the Use for column, so we
>> replaced them with RECOMMENDED.  As such, I added a sentence to the
>> document that now says:
>>
>>    Note that the "Use for" columns values use "RECOMMENDED" when the
>>    corresponding "Implement for" column is a "MUST" value.
>>
>> Does that work for you?
>> --
>> Wes Hardaker
>> USC/ISI
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OPS-DIR mailing list -- [e-mail]
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>>
>
>
> --
> *Nabeel Cocker*
> Senior Principal Architect, Global Telco Consulting Practice
>
> M: [phone]
>
> Email: [e-mail]
> <https://www.redhat.com/>
>


-- 
*Nabeel Cocker*
Senior Principal Architect, Global Telco Consulting Practice

M: [phone]

Email: [e-mail]
<https://www.redhat.com/>