Re: [DNSOP] AD Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Wed, 13 February 2019 01:43 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 714CF130EE7 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 17:43:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E_sfzhf1ZxNx for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 17:43:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17253130EE2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 17:43:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43zj3Q57dzzK7b; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 02:43:30 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1550022210; bh=Fv5G89XqTMu4IrOrqigZ0JGmnoodtTnr8sSM/XBeiNg=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=J+FZVKsf9VspYIwKkBA2r1lWKw6pymf8IY+dMMScSufYVL5QvrHdQJb52SEZy9yzM Omy2kbRjgp0JnKcf+YW9PhAneZtZ1Enm5k2LEtt/+EnLJrrNUK3mDwTeY5tSNR7QFq P73Cl2PeEI37nNa2NU7w7Nazx11W6lw1v2pNN3v4=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9BU57jmRZ2AK; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 02:43:29 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 02:43:29 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8E235A7E0C; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 20:43:28 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 8E235A7E0C
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8512940D358A; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 20:43:28 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 20:43:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_iKB4rd3ZPCrjovJHzPdpQG2k7n3gaCkhpXzyanJhxj_Kw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1902122043070.15552@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <CAHw9_iKB4rd3ZPCrjovJHzPdpQG2k7n3gaCkhpXzyanJhxj_Kw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/ogyVuehOPkpNheSnm3DGgN0JbGA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] AD Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 01:43:34 -0000

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019, Warren Kumari wrote:

> Section 1.2.  Updating Algorithm Requirement Levels says:
> "[RFC2119] considers the term SHOULD equivalent to RECOMMENDED, and
>    SHOULD NOT equivalent to NOT RECOMMENDED.  The authors of this
>    document have chosen to use the terms RECOMMENDED and NOT
>    RECOMMENDED, as this more clearly expresses the recommendations to
>    implementers."
> 
> Actually, RFC2119 doesn't really contain NOT RECOMMENDED --- but, RFC8174 ("Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words"),
> which updates RFC2119 *does*. 
> 
> Can the authors please resubmit with the new boilerplate from RFC8174 in Section 2 (Conventions Used in This Document) and I'll kick off IETF
> LC.

done:

https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update-05

Paul