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

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

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]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 7:22 AM, Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 18, 2022, at 7:58 AM, Ron Even <[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
>>
>> 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/
>>
>> 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
>
> '-' 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
>>>
>>