Return-Path: X-Original-To: dnsop@mail2.ietf.org Delivered-To: dnsop@mail2.ietf.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97FC030F79AB for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:39:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.198 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EYipvXmWkeg1 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:39:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ppa5.dc.icann.org (ppa5.dc.icann.org [192.0.46.78]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 126E830F79A6 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:39:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MBX112-E2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.7]) by ppa5.dc.icann.org (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTPS id 554Jd4o3028319 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 4 Jun 2025 19:39:04 GMT Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:39:03 -0700 Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([169.254.44.235]) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([169.254.44.235]) with mapi id 15.02.1544.011; Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:39:03 -0700 From: Paul Hoffman To: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" Thread-Topic: [Ext] [DNSOP] Last actions for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis and its SHA1/GOST companions Thread-Index: AQHbz7AT4x80+FMuYkipYuxivyQJrbPqcb8AgANt6YiABgb3gA== Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 19:39:03 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234] x-source-routing-agent: True Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <80971960C37C0D42B59C16452BAD0789@pexch112.icann.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1099,Hydra:6.0.736,FMLib:17.12.80.40 definitions=2025-06-04_04,2025-06-03_02,2025-03-28_01 Message-ID-Hash: QBV3UXMH4CAZXA5KKPG6ICS73VQQMDD7 X-Message-ID-Hash: QBV3UXMH4CAZXA5KKPG6ICS73VQQMDD7 X-MailFrom: paul.hoffman@icann.org X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-dnsop.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: DNSOP WG X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6 Precedence: list Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BDNSOP=5D_Re=3A_=5BExt=5D_Last_actions_for_draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8?= =?utf-8?q?624-bis_and_its_SHA1/GOST_companions?= List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On May 31, 2025, at 23:40, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > Sorry if there was confusion, but my original email was not about a form= al request to DNSOP for yet another formal review but more a courtesy notic= e to the DNSOP WG that this triplet of DNSOP drafts were approved by the IE= SG (so DNSOP could have a look on the approved I-D) and that the authors co= uld submit yet another revised I-D to polish their content based on non-blo= cking IESG comments until Wednesday. ...and now the authors have sent the updates. There have indeed been some s= ignificant 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=3Ddraft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis-07= &url2=3Ddraft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis-13&difftype=3D--html https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=3Ddraft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-sha1-= 04&url2=3Ddraft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-sha1-09&difftype=3D--html https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=3Ddraft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-ecc-g= ost-02&url2=3Ddraft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-ecc-gost-07&difftype=3D--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.", b= ut that is not reflected in the header. That is, the header does not say "U= pdates: 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 t= he Introduction, and it is not listed there either. --Paul Hoffman