Re: [DNSOP] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update-07: (with COMMENT)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 12:20:21PM -0400, Warren Kumari wrote:
> [ - IESG (for clutter), Bob & Tim (through DNSOP / Chairs respectively) ]
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 7:55 AM Paul Wouters <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 5 Apr 2019, Bob Harold wrote:
> >
> > [ SNIP ]
> >
> > >       In a similar vein, if we stay at PS, a lot of the references seem
> > like
> > >       they would need to move from Informative to Normative, since to
> > >       implement the various MUST-level algorithms you have to follow
> > those
> > >       references.
> >
> > I would not say those references are normative in that sense. You don't
> > HAVE to read how GOST is specified to not implement it.
> >
> >
> Perhaps, but there are still lots of Informative references which
> implementers would need to read. For example:
> 
> RFC5702, RFC6605:
> 8 RSA/SHA-256 RSASHA256 Y * [RFC5702]
> 10 RSA/SHA-512 RSASHA512 Y * [RFC5702]
> 13 ECDSA Curve P-256 with SHA-256 ECDSAP256SHA256 Y * [RFC6605]
> 
> RFC4509:
> 2 SHA-256 MANDATORY [RFC4509]
> 
> It is a simple matter to make these Normative....

I'll also note (sic) that note 1 at
https://www.ietf.org/blog/iesg-statement-normative-and-informative-references/
says:

  Even references that are relevant only for optional features must be
  classified as normative if they meet the above conditions for normative
  references.

-Ben