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

[Wes Hardaker <[e-mail]>]

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

Hi Nabeel,

> 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."

Done!


> 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".

Good catch, thanks.

> 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"

That's a good point and we don't discuss it in the document.  The WG
wished to not use MUST and MUST-NOT for the Use for column, so we
replaced them with RECOMMENDED.  As such, I added a sentence to the
document that now says:

   Note that the "Use for" columns values use "RECOMMENDED" when the
   corresponding "Implement for" column is a "MUST" value.

Does that work for you?
-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI