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

[Boris Makarenko <[e-mail]>]

Hello, Warren

Just uploaded the 12th version. The only change is status of GOST R 
34.11-94 -- DEPRECATED.

--

Boris

23.10.2022 18:20, Warren Kumari пишет:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 2:54 PM, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 12:41 PM, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>         On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 7:22 AM, Paul Hoffman
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>             On Oct 18, 2022, at 7:58 AM, Ron Even
>             <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>             wrote:
>
>                 1. whis is this an informational RFC and not a
>                 standard track RFC.
>
>             That's a reasonable question with a simple answer: because
>             the WG changed its mind on what the status of this
>             protocol should be. RFC 5933 describes a national standard
>             that is thinly deployed. At the time, it was necessary to
>             have the protocol on standards track; now it no longer is
>             required.
>
>                 2. What is requested from IANA. ths text you wrote and
>                 I copied is not a directive to IANA that is clear
>
>             You are correct that the IANA Considerations section is
>             quite unclear, and needs to be clarified before the IESG
>             considers it.
>
>
>
>         That is a good point.
>
>         The document says:
>         ---
>         This document updates the RFC IANA registry "Delegation Signer
>         (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms" by adding an
>         entry for the GOST R 34.11-2012 algorithm:
>
>         Value   Algorithm
>         TBA2    GOST R 34.11-2012
>
>            The entry for Value 3, GOST R 34.11-94 should be updated to
>         have its Status changed to '-'.
>         ----
>
>         The IANA registry being referenced "DNSSEC Delegation Signer
>         (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms" is here:
>         https://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types/ds-rr-types.xhtml
>         <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types/ds-rr-types.xhtml>
>
>         Setting this to '-' does seem incorrect, and from the text I
>         think that it should be either "MUST NOT" or, better yet (for
>         clarity) "DEPRECATED" .
>
>         In addition, the IANA has a question:
>         ------
>         "Third, in the DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record
>         (RR) Type Digest Algorithms registry located at:
>
>         https://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types/
>         <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types/>
>
>         a new registration will be made as follows:
>
>         Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
>         Description: GOST R 34.11-2012
>         Status:
>         Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
>
>         IANA Question --> What should the entry for "Status" be for
>         this new registration?"
>         --------
>
>
>
>
>         I believe that it is clear (e.g: "6.  Implementation
>         Considerations
>            The support of this cryptographic suite in DNSSEC-aware
>         systems is
>         OPTIONAL.") that it can only be OPTIONAL, but we need to
>         clearly state that.
>
>         So, I think a new version should be submitted saying:
>         ----
>         This document updates the RFC IANA registry "Delegation Signer
>         (DS)
>            Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms" by adding an
>         entry for
>            the GOST R 34.11-2012 algorithm:
>
>         Value:   TBA2
>         Description: GOST R 34.11-2012
>         Status: OPTIONAL
>           Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
>
>            The entry for Value 3, GOST R 34.11-94 should be updated to
>         have its
>            Status changed to 'DEPRECATED'.
>
>
>     A new version was submitted (-11), but still says:
>     "   The entry for Value 3, GOST R 34.11-94 should be updated to
>     have its
>        Status changed to '-'."
>
>     The registry is here:
>     https://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types/ds-rr-types.xhtml
>     <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types/ds-rr-types.xhtml>
>
>     '-' to me implies that the codepoint hasn't  been used, but I
>     don't actually know if that's true. I think "DEPRECATED" is
>     better, but perhaps I'm wrong (anyone seeing '-' will presumably
>     do read the referenced RFC, so…_)
>
>     I will ask the IANA which they think is best / clearest…
>
>
> Closing the loop:
>
> I reached out to the IANA, and this was their reply:
> "Hi Warren,
>
> It makes sense to us to list "DEPRECATED" in the status column. When 
> we're asked to deprecate a codepoint, the label "deprecated" is 
> usually added to the registration in some way.
>
> "-" is a bit of a cipher, and doesn't indicate that there's been a change.
>
> thanks,
> Amanda
> "
>
> If the authors post a new version before the draft cut-off (Monday) 
> with this addressed I should be able to move it along.
>
> Thank you all,
> W
>
>
>
>
>     W
>
>
>
>         W
>
>
>             --Paul Hoffman
>
>