[DNSOP] Re: [Ext] Last actions for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis and its SHA1/GOST companions

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

On May 31, 2025, at 23:40, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>  Sorry if there was confusion, but my original email was not about a formal request to DNSOP for yet another formal review but more a courtesy notice to the DNSOP WG that this triplet of DNSOP drafts were approved by the IESG (so DNSOP could have a look on the approved I-D) and that the authors could submit yet another revised I-D to polish their content based on non-blocking IESG comments until Wednesday.

...and now the authors have sent the updates. There have indeed been some significant changes, but none that I believe the WG would have objected to.

FWIW, I checked by looking at diffs from the versions that left the WG:

https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis-07&url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis-13&difftype=--html
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-sha1-04&url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-sha1-09&difftype=--html
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-ecc-gost-02&url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-ecc-gost-07&difftype=--html

One editorial note on draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-ecc-gost: the new abstract says "This document updates RFC5933 by deprecating the use of ECC-GOST.", but that is not reflected in the header. That is, the header does not say "Updates: 5933" and I suspect it should because of the new wording. Further, I think the (formal? informal?) rule is that any update also be listed in the Introduction, and it is not listed there either.

--Paul Hoffman