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

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

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…

W



> W
>
>
>> --Paul Hoffman
>>
>