Re: [dnsext] draft-srose-dnssec-algo-imp-status-00 (was: Re: Follow up on draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes)

Sam,

Thanks for your comments.  Scott and I will work on these.

Steve

On Jan 13, 2012, at 6:55 AM, Samuel Weiler wrote:

> I generally support the idea behind this draft (putting current recommendation state in an RFC), but I have some minor concerns about the specific content:
> 
> "The status of RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1 is set to RECOMMENDED TO IMPLEMENT.  This is due to the fact that RSA/SHA-1 is a MUST IMPLEMENT."
> 
> I don't follow the logic in the above.  Why does A follow from B?
> 
> "Adding a newly specified algorithm to the registry with a compliance status SHALL entail obsolescing this document and replacing the registry table (with the new algorithm entry)."
> 
> I suggest: "Adding...with an implementation status other than OPTIONAL SHALL....and publishing a new document with a new complete registry table."
> 
> Throughout this document, "implementation status", "compliance status", and "implementations compliance status" appear.  I don't understand the difference between the three.  If there is none, pick one and stick to it.
> 
> In security considerations: "This document replaces the Domain Name System (DNS) Security Algorithm Numbers registry."  I don't think you intended to write that in this document.
> 
> -- Sam
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> dnsext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext