Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-10

[Ron Even <[e-mail]>]

Hi,
your response does not address my comments.
1. whis is this an informational RFC and not a standard track RFC.
2. What is requested from IANA. ths text you wrote and I copied is not a
directive to IANA that is clear
Roni

On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 2:44 PM Макаренко Борис <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hello, Roni!
>
> The old algorithms GOST R 34.11-94, GOST R 34.10-2001 and GOST R
> 34.11-2001 are considered obsolete. They are now replaced with GOST R
> 34.10-2012 (digital signature) and GOST R 34.11-2012 (hash function).
> Basically, the use of GOST algorithms in DNSSEC remains the same as
> described in RFC 5933, but it is necessary to replace them with the new
> ones. Old algorithms should not be used anymore. That's why we need to
> obsolete RFC 5933.
>
> The section "IANA Considerations" proposes to assign numbers for GOST R
> 34.10-2012 and GOST R 34.11-2012 in the IANA registries "DNS Security
> Algorithm Numbers" (
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers/dns-sec-alg-numbers.xhtml)
> and "Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms" (
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types/ds-rr-types.xhtml).
>
> Updates for RFC 8624 are described in the corresponding Section.
>
> --
> Boris
>
>
> 13.10.2022 14:41, Roni Even via Datatracker writes:
> > Reviewer: Roni Even Review result: Almost Ready > > 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 treat these comments just like > any other last call
> comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > >
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document:
> draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-?? Reviewer: Roni Even Review > Date:
> 2022-10-13 IETF LC End Date: 2022-10-19 IESG Telechat date: Not > scheduled
> for a telechat > > Summary: the document is almost ready for publication as
> some type of > an RFC > > Major issues: The document is meant to be an
> informational RFC > obsoleting RFC5933 a standard track RFC. why is this
> change. > > Minor issues: > > the directive in the IANA consideration "The
> entry for Value 3, > GOST R 34.11-94 should be updated to have its Status
> changed to '-'" > is not clear. there is no status field in the table as I
> see in > RFC8624 section 3.3 > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > >
>