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

[Nabeel Cocker via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Review is partially done. Another assignment may be needed to complete it.

Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis
Title: DNSSEC Cryptographic Algorithm Recommendation Update Process
Reviewer: Nabeel Cocker
Review result: Has Nits

First many thanks to the authors for working on this.

A couple of nits:

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."

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".

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"

   |5 |RSASHA1        |NOT        |RECOMMENDED|NOT        |MUST       |
   |  |               |RECOMMENDED|           |RECOMMENDED|           |

Is this intentional or am I misreading? If so, there does not seem to be any
text explaining this (or I missed it?).

Otherwise, the document is very well written.

Many thanks to the authors!

Regards,
Nabeel