Re: [DNSOP] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8624 (6227)

[Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020, RFC Errata System wrote:

> Subject: [DNSOP] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8624 (6227)
> 
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8624,
> "Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for DNSSEC".

> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Mats Dufberg <[e-mail]>

> Original Text
> -------------
>   This document has no IANA actions.
>
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>   This document updates the IANA registry "Delegation Signer (DS) Resource
>   Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms". The registry has been updated by
>   the following table from section 3.3:

[...]


> Notes
> -----
> The document clearly has the intention to update the IANA registers, which is also stated in the document, but not in section 6 ("IANA Considerations").


The document did NOT add any columns to the IANA registry. Whether a
successor of this document should do that or not is up to the working
group. Some WG's prefer that recommendations stay in RFC's and IANA
just stays numbers. Other WGs add a column for deprecated/obsoleted

So I think technically, this errata is not correct.

I do agree that a future RFC should add a Notes column where we can
mark an entry as deprecated/obsolete. I do not think we should add
recommended, not recommended here, as the iANA registry itself does
not allow us to explain and clarify why we come to such recommendations
and an implementor cannot really decide on whether to implement a
MAY or NOT REOMMENDED or RECOMMENDED without having more context.

Paul