Re: [DNSOP] [[e-mail]] New Version Notification for draft-hardaker-dnsop-rfc8624-bis-00.txt

[Wes Hardaker <[e-mail]>]

Paul Wouters <[e-mail]> writes:

> first read of rfcdiff

So I actually took the draft from the github archive from both of you,
not from the real 8624 xml (because I couldn't find it -- though I know
it exists).


> 
> 	guidance for DNSSEC. This document obsoletes <xref target="RFC6944"/>.
> 
> - no targets allowed in the abstract :)

Buttttt....  you guys had one in the original draft!

> - You removed RFC8174 from the 2119 text for no good reason :)

Fixed (again, copied from source)

> - SHA1 changed for validation  from MUST to SHOULD NOT. This is the
>   discussion item for the WG :)

Yep.  It's a discussion place holder

> - GOST to MUST NOT, ok but could add GOST 2012 as per
> draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis

Yep, I needed to find the reference for that.  So thanks.

> - You changed NOT RECOMMENDED terminology to SHOULD NOT (I think I
>   originally had that and Ondrey / the WG preferred NOT RECOMMENDED).
>   Either works for me.

I actually had NOT RECOMMENDED originally, but people in the WG were
suggesting SHOULD NOT in the comments so far so I switched it.  I'm fine
with either.

> - NIT: The SHA-256 is RECOMMENDED [for the] DS and CDS algorithm[s].

All fixed.

[and invited you to the github repo too]
-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI