Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update-07

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

Peter, thanks for your review. I entered a Yes ballot and pointed to your review.

Alissa

> On Apr 6, 2019, at 5:16 AM, Peter Yee via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Peter Yee
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update-07
> Reviewer: Peter Yee
> Review Date: 2019-04-06
> IETF LC End Date: 2019-02-27
> IESG Telechat date: 2019-04-11
> 
> Summary:  This document updates the DNSKEY, DS, and CDS algorithm
> recommendations for use in DNSSEC based on current thinking in cryptography. 
> This document is Ready with Nits as a Standards Track publication.
> 
> Major issues: None
> 
> Minor issues: None
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> Page 2, Section 1.1, 2nd sentence: append a comma after "New".
> 
> Page 3, Section 1.2, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: change "recommendation cannot
> be recommended" to "they cannot be recommended".
> 
> Page 3, Section 1.2, 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence: change "recommendation" to
> "intent".
> 
> Page 3, Section 1.2, 6th paragraph, 1st sentence: change "DNSKEY's" to
> "DNSKEYs".
> 
> Page 3, Section 1.2, 6th paragraph, 3rd sentence: indicate for clarity where
> this marking will be done (essentially in a new version of this RFC).
> 
> Page 4, Section 1.3: In general, it would be nice if there were references in
> the paragraphs following the table that point to the research that led to the
> statements of strength or lack of strength of the algorithms.  Then again, this
> isn't an academic paper, so references aren't strictly required either.  While
> I mostly (but not completely) agree with the notes on the individual
> algorithms, the average reader is left to take the statements as gospel rather
> than being able to make an informed decision on the current state of
> cryptography.
> 
> Page 4, Section 1.3, 3rd sentence: delete a redundant "from".
> 
> Page 5, 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence: change "cryptographics" to "cryptographic".
> 
> Page 5, 4th paragraph, 3rd sentence: change "that" to "who".
> 
> Page 5, 5th paragraph, 2nd sentence: delete "The" before "GOST".  I'm generally
> in favor of dropping the definite article of algorithm abbreviations.  If you
> prefer not to do so, then use the definitive article consistently throughout
> the document.
> 
> Page 5, 6th paragraph, 3rd sentence: insert "the" before "deterministic".
> 
> Page 5, 8th paragraph, 1st sentence: change "ED25519" to "Ed25519".  Change
> "ED448" to "Ed448".  Only make these two changes if you are referring to these
> algorithms by the names given to them by their authors as opposed to the
> mnemonics used within DNSSEC.  (This statement also applies to the Ed25519
> comment below.) Insert "the" before "Edwards".
> 
> Page 5, 8th paragraph, 2nd sentence: delete "the" before "EdDSA".  Delete
> "algorithm" after "EdDSA".
> 
> Page 5, 8th paragraph, 4th sentence: change "ED25519" to "Ed25519".
> 
> Page 6, Section 3.2, 2nd paragraph: insert "the" before "industry".  Change "to
> move to" to "toward".  Delete "the" before "ECDSAP256SHA256 ".  Insert "the"
> before "RECOMMENDED".  Change "RSA based" to "RSA-based".
> 
> Page 6, Section 3.3, 3rd paragraph, 1st fragment: change "for" to "regarding". 
> Append "are summarized in the table below." to the fragment.
> 
> Page 6, Section 3.3, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence: append "recommendations"
> after "These".
> 
> Page 6, 1st paragraph after table: append a period to the end of the sentence.
> 
> Page 6, 2nd paragraph after the table: append a period to the end of the
> sentence.
> 
> Page 6, 4th paragraph after the table, 2nd sentence: delete "The" before "GOST".
> 
> Page 6, 5th paragraph, 1st sentence: change second "SHA-384" to "SHA-256".
> 
> Page 7, Section 3.4, 1st sentence: change the period at the end of a sentence
> to a colon.  Join the following sentence to the first sentence after deleting
> "The" before "SHA-256" and insert "the" before "RECOMMENDED".
> 
> Page 7, Section 4: this section has not been reviewed since it is to be deleted
> by the RFC Editor prior to publication.
> 
> Page 8, Section 5, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: consider appending "(in the
> cryptographic sense)" after "broken".
> 
> Page 9, Section 8, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: delete an extraneous space
> after "I.".  Append a comma after "Wouters".
> 
> Page 9, Section 8, 2nd paragraph: append a comma after "Hoffman".  "Imminent"
> in this sentence is probably not the word you want in document at time of
> publication, although it's fine to prod the named individuals into submitted
> input prior to publication.
> 
> Page 9, Section 8, 3rd paragraph: change "the daylight" to "light".
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art