[DNSOP] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update-08: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Abstract.  Nit.  There is a reference, [RFC6944], in the abstract which
isn’t permitted.

(2) Section 1.2, Per “This document only provides recommendations with respect
to mandatory-to-implement algorithms or algorithms so weak that recommendation
cannot be recommended”

** Editorial:
s/algorithms so weak that recommendation cannot be recommended/
algorithms so weak that they cannot be recommended/

** The first part of the sentence doesn’t appear to be consistent with the
RFC2119 words in the Section 3.1 Table which also includes RECOMMENDED/MAY
(which is neither MTI or NOT RECOMMENDED)

(3) Section 1.3, Typo, s/from from/from/

(4) Section 3.1, Typo, s/cryptographics/cryptographic/

(5) Section 3.1, ED448 appears to be the only algorithm that doesn’t have
treatment in even briefly describing its designated implementation
recommendation.

(6) Section 3.1, The sentence “It is expected that ED25519 will become the
future RECOMMENDED default algorithm …” is clear on the future.  However,
looking back at the table in this section, it wasn’t clear what the current
default algorithm is.

(7) Section 3.2, The sentence “Operation recommendation for new and existing
deployments.” Seems to stand alone or is missing some words.  Should it be
something along the lines of “This section provides operational recommendations
…”

(8) Section 3.2, Typo, s/is RECOMMENDED/is the RECOMMENDED/

(9) Section 3.4, Editorial, s/The SHA-256/SHA-256/

(10) Section 4, Typo, s/seciton/section/

(11) Section 5, Editorial, s/for the use of DNSSEC/for use in DNSSEC/